Post on 31-Mar-2020
30 August Final Draft for review 1
Deliverable D11 Musculoskeletal Health in Europe
30 August Final Draft for review 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5
INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE 6
Musculoskeletal pain 9 Musculoskeletal pain incidence and prevalence 9
Osteoarthritis 14 Osteoarthritis incidence and prevalence 15 Osteoarthritis co-morbidities and mortality 20
Rheumatoid arthritis 21 Rheumatoid arthritis incidence and prevalence 22 Rheumatoid arthritis co-morbidities and mortality 26
Low back pain 27 Low back pain incidence and prevalence 27 Low back pain and co-morbidities 31
Osteoporosis 32 Osteoporosis incidence and prevalence 32 Osteoporosis co-morbidities and mortality 37
Gout 39 Gout incidence and prevalence 41 Gout co-morbidities and mortality 42
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis 43 JIA incidence and prevalence 43 JIA co-morbidities and mortality 44
WORK RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS AND TRAUMA 45
IMPACT ON POPULATION HEALTH - DISABILITY AND MORTALITY 55 MSC & Disability Adjusted Life Years 55 MSC & Years Lived with Disability 59 MSC related mortality 63
DETERMINANTS OF MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH 66
Age 67
Obesity 68
Physical activity and exercise 70
Diet and nutrition 71
Alcohol 72
Smoking 74
30 August Final Draft for review 3
Accidents and injuries - sport, occupational, RTAs, falls 75 Occupational injuries 75 Road traffic accidents 77
Changing lifestyles and the prevention of musculoskeletal conditions 78
Management of Musculoskeletal Conditions 79
Strategies to prevent MSC 81 For whole population 81 The At Risk Population 82 Early Disease 83 Established Conditions 85
HEALTH SERVICES UTILISATION 90
Hospital services utilisation – average length of stay 90
Hospital services utilisation – hospital discharges 91
Hospital services utilisation - Age-standardised admission rates 93
Hospital services utilisation - day cases 94
Variation in utilisation of hospital services for MSC 95
Hospital services utilisation - Number of surgeries hip and knee arthroplasty 98
Health Services Utilisation - Primary & Community Care 101
Human resources 105 Rheumatologists 106 Orthopaedic Specialists 107 Occupational Therapists 108 Physiotherapists 109
Diagnostic equipment 109
Drug use 111 Self-reported medication use for MSC 111 Pharmaceuticals consumption for MSC 113 Pharmaceuticals sales for MSC 116 International variation in use of TNF inhibitors & DMARD 120
IMPACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL 122
Measuring the impact of disease on quality of life 122 Impact of Rheumatoid arthritis on Quality of Life 125 Impact of Osteoarthritis and Osteoporosis on Quality of Life 126 Impact of hip fracture on Quality of Life 127 QoL in patients with MSC compared to other conditions 127 Comparing Quality of Life between musculoskeletal conditions 129 Differences between countries in MSC related quality of life 129 Improvements in Quality of Life 129
Musculoskeletal conditions and work disability 130 QUEST-RA study 132 TNF treatment of RA - sick leave & disability 134
30 August Final Draft for review 4
Disability and poverty 135 Impact on carers 136
IMPACT ON SOCIETY 137
Health care costs 137
Work loss and productivity 144
Musculoskeletal conditions and disability costs 154
HEALTH INEQUALITIES AND MUSCULOSKELETAL CONDITIONS 159
Health care inequalities 162 MSC and socioeconomic status 163 Age and gender 166 Ethnicity 166
Equity of access to MSC treatments across the EU 166
Regional inequalities in access to MSC health care 168
CONCLUSION 172
REFERENCES 174
30 August Final Draft for review 5
Introduction Musculoskeletal conditions (MSC) are the most common cause of severe long term
pain and disability in the EU and lead to significant healthcare and social support
costs. As a major cause of work absence and incapacity they also have a major
economic cost through lost productivity. They can seriously impact the quality of life
of those with the conditions, their families, friends and carers and impinge on all
aspects of their lives. Despite the significant impact of these conditions on the health
and well being of populations and individuals across the EU there is a lack of
awareness of musculoskeletal conditions. This together with a lack of routinely
collected indicators that are specifically relevant to musculoskeletal conditions means
that musculoskeletal conditions do not receive the attention commensurate with their
impact. This report, which has been prepared as part of the eumusc.net project, aims
to provide an up to date picture of the health, social, employment and economic
impacts of musculoskeletal conditions across EU Member States. It doing so it draws
on many sources of data and information including health and labour force surveys,
national statistics, reports and peer reviewed literature.
The prevalence of many MSC and their associated disability increases with ageing,
obesity and lack of physical activity. All these determinants are increasing across
Member States and without action the burden of MSC will grow. Understanding the
impact of these common, disabling but usually non-fatal conditions will provide the
evidence to support the development of strategies and policies for their effective
prevention and management.
30 August Final Draft for review 6
Incidence and prevalence
The musculoskeletal system provides form, support, stability, and movement to the
body. It is made up of bones, muscles, cartilage, tendons, ligaments and other
connective tissues. Musculoskeletal conditions are a diverse group of conditions
which affect the musculoskeletal system and are associated with pain and impaired
physical function. They range from those that arise suddenly and are short lived to life
long disorders. They include:
• Joint conditions—for example, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis
(OA)
• Bone conditions—for example, osteoporosis and associated fragility
fractures
• Spinal disorders—for example, low back pain
• Regional and widespread pain disorders
• Musculoskeletal injuries—for example, high-energy limb fractures, strains
and sprains often related to occupation or sports
• Genetic, congenital and developmental childhood disorders
• Multisystem inflammatory diseases which commonly have
musculoskeletal manifestations such as connective tissue diseases and
vasculitis
Those problems and conditions not related to injuries or traumas are sometimes called
rheumatic diseases and those predominantly affecting joints are collectively called
arthritis. “Musculoskeletal problems” is a useful term to describe symptoms affecting
the musculoskeletal system, whereas “musculoskeletal conditions” can be used when
a cause is known.
Musculoskeletal problems are very common. For example, in a 2007 EU survey it
was found that 22% of the population currently had, or had experienced long-term
muscle, bone and joint problems such as rheumatism and arthritis.
30 August Final Draft for review 7
Figure Eurobarometer 2007 – percentage of respondents reporting health
conditions (current or ever had).
Source: European Commission 2007.
This chapter describes the following conditions and gives data on their incidence &
prevalence, co-morbidities and mortality rates:
• Musculoskeletal pain
• Osteoarthritis (OA)
• Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)
• Low back pain
• Osteoporosis & fragility fractures
• Gout
• Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA)
It draws on a number of sources of data including surveys such as the European
Health Interview Survey (EHIS), Eurobarometer and national health surveys;
literature (including Global Burden of Disease systematic review); national statistics
4
5
5
6
7
9
16
17
19
22
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cataract
Chronic bronchitis, emphysema
Osteoporosis
Diabetes
Asthma
Chronic anxiety or depression
Migrane or frequent headaches
An allergy
Hypertension (high blood pressure)
Long-standing troubles with muscles,bones and joints (rheumatism, arthritis)
Percent
30 August Final Draft for review 8
and registers. Health interview surveys offer comprehensive data on the health status
and the health-related behaviours of a population based on a series of personal
household interviews. The EHIS is implemented and managed by Eurostat. The
survey is conducted every five years and includes information from all European
Union (EU) Member States. The questions in EHIS relevant to MSC include:
Do you have or have you ever had any of the following diseases or
conditions?
– Osteoarthritis (arthrosis, joint degeneration)
– Rheumatoid arthritis
– Low back disorder or other chronic back defect
– Neck disorder or other chronic neck defect
Was this disease/condition diagnosed by a medical doctor?
Have you had this disease/condition in the past 12 months?
( http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:European_h
ealth_interview_survey_(EHIS).)
The WHO Global Burden of Disease project draws on a wide range of data sources to
quantify global and regional effects of diseases, injuries and risk factors on population
health. Its’ analysis provides a comprehensive and comparable assessment of
mortality and loss of health due to diseases, injuries and risk factors for all regions of
the world. The overall burden of disease is assessed using the disability-adjusted life
year (DALY), a time-based measure that combines years of life lost due to premature
mortality and years of life lost due to time lived in states of less than full health.
( http://www.who.int/topics/global_burden_of_disease/en/ )
30 August Final Draft for review 9
Musculoskeletal pain
The most common musculoskeletal pain experienced is back pain; pain is the most
prominent symptom in most people with arthritis and is the most important
determinant of disability in patients with osteoarthritis. Respondents often report
having more than one musculoskeletal complaint (Jzelenberg et al 2004) and
musculoskeletal pain is often widespread. For example, a substantial proportion of
patients with chronic back pain also have chronic widespread pain (Natvig 2001).
Chronic widespread pain (CWP) is a symptom of fibromyalgia syndrome.
Musculoskeletal pain incidence and prevalence
Musculoskeletal pain is very common. A review of prevalence studies indicated that
in adult populations almost one fifth reported widespread pain, one third shoulder
pain, and up to one half reported low back pain in a 1-month period (McBeth & Jones
2007).
Data from the Austrian National Health Survey (2006) shows the percentage of
respondents who reported substantial pain in the last 3 and 12 months. Substantial
pain most often occurs in the knee and back.
30 August Final Draft for review 10
Figure Substantial pain in the last 3 & 12 months, Austria 2006.
Source: Austria National Health Survey 2006.
A study of international differences in the prevalence of CWP (MacFarlane et al
2009) showed that there were significant differences between centres in 8 different
European countries. It found that there was an excess prevalence in countries of
Eastern Europe. This excess was associated with poorer psychological and physical
health as well as adverse psychosocial factors (life events).
A national study conducted in the Netherlands presents estimates of the prevalence of
musculoskeletal pain of five different anatomical areas and ten anatomical sites, and
their consequences and risk groups in the general Dutch population (Picavet &
Shouten 2003). It used cross-sectional data from a population-based study of a sex-
age stratified sample of Dutch inhabitants of 25 years and older. A postal
questionnaire data was used to assess musculoskeletal pain, associated characteristics
of the pain and general socio-demographic characteristics. 74.5% of respondents
reported any musculoskeletal pain during the past 12 months; 53.9% reported
musculoskeletal pain during survey (point prevalence) and 44.4% reported
musculoskeletal pain lasting longer than 3 months.
It found a one year prevalence of low back pain of 44%, neck complaints 31%,
shoulder complaints 30%, wrist complaints 18% and elbow complaints 18%. In most
Austria 2006: Substantial pain in past 3 & 12 months
7.1
6.2
5.24.6
3.9
9.4
4.94.4
3.73.4
3.0
7.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cervicalspine pain
Shoulderpain
Thoracicspine pain
Hip pain Finger &hand pain
Knee, thigh,lower leg
painArea
Perc
ent
Pain in last 12 months
Pain in last 3 months
30 August Final Draft for review 11
cases the pain was described as continuous or recurrent and mild. Musculoskeletal
pain was found to be common in all subgroups of the population and to have far-
reaching consequences for health, work and the use of health care.
Figure Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain The Netherlands 2003
Source: Picavet 2003.
As musculoskeletal pain often goes undiagnosed and it is difficult to quantify severity,
an important widely used measure is that of musculoskeletal pain which restricts
activities of daily living. In the Picavet study (2003) in three out of ten cases the
complaints about pain were accompanied by limitations in daily living.
The Eurobarometer Report on Health in the European Union included the question:
“In the last week, have you had any pain affecting your muscles, joints, neck or back
which has affected your ability to carry out the activities of daily living? If yes, which
part of the body did you have such pain.”
32% of all respondents and 44% of those 55 years and over said that in the preceding
week they experienced muscle, joint, neck or back pain which affected their daily
activities. Those ending their education at 15 were more likely to have had a problem
with activity limiting pain (43% vs. 27% of those continuing education to 20 and
30 August Final Draft for review 12
beyond) and women were more likely than men to experience this pain (37% vs.
27%).
Countries reporting particularly high levels of reduced activities due to pain were
Finland (44%) and Lithuania (42%). The lowest proportions reporting activity
reducing pain were Ireland (18%) and Portugal (21%).
Figure Activity restricting musculoskeletal pain in past week
Source: European Commission 2007.
The Eurobarometer survey also asked about musculoskeletal pain in the last 3 months
or more (chronic pain). 25% of all respondents say that at some point in their life they
have experienced chronic restrictive musculoskeletal pain.The highest levels of
reported activity limiting musculoskeletal pain were in Austria (35%) and Finland
(33%). The lowest were in Greece (13%), Ireland and Luxembourg (both 16%).
30 August Final Draft for review 13
Figure Activity restricting musculoskeletal pain in 3 months or more
Source: Eurobarometer 2007
30 August Final Draft for review 14
Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder and accounts for more
disability among the elderly than any other disease. It is characterised by changes to
the structure of the entire joint. Osteoarthritis case definition can be based on
pathological changes seen on x-ray, by the presence of joint symptoms or both. It can
also be related to the joints affected. The preferred definition for OA includes both x-
ray findings and the presence of joint pain on most days (Altman et al, 1986).
• Pathological: focal areas of loss of articular cartilage within synovial joints,
associated with hypertrophy of bone (osteophytes and subchondral bone
sclerosis) and thickening of the capsule
• Clinical: by joint pain, tenderness, limitation of movement, crepitus,
occasional effusion, and variable degrees of local inflammation
• Radiological: loss of joint space, osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis and cysts
Osteoarthritis is characterised by focal areas of fibrillation, fissures, ulceration and
full thickness loss of articular cartilage within synovial joints, associated with
hypertrophy of bone (osteophytes and subchondral bone sclerosis) and thickening of
the capsule. OA can affect any joint, but is most common in the hand, the spine, knee,
foot and hip. Clinically, the condition is characterized by joint pain, tenderness,
limitation of movement, crepitus (grating, cracking or popping sounds in the joint),
stiffness after immobility and limitation of movement with occasional effusion and
variable degrees of local inflammation. The pathological change, when severe, results
in radiological changes (loss of joint space, subchondral sclerosis, cysts and
osteophytes). These radiological changes can be graded, usually by Kellgren &
Lawrence scores. A Kellgren & Lawrence score of 2-4 is the most widely used
definition of radiological osteoarthritis in epidemiological studies to estimate
prevalence of OA at different joint sites (Kellgren and Lawrence, 1958). Radiographic
changes are not always accompanied by symptoms of pain, stiffness or loss of
function and conversely joint pain is not always associated with radiological
abnormalities. Therefore the preferred definition for epidemiological studies of
30 August Final Draft for review 15
osteoarthritis includes both X-ray findings (≥grade 2) and the presence of joint pain
on most days, as either finding alone leads to over-estimates.
Osteoarthritis incidence and prevalence
The incidence of osteoarthritis is problematic to estimate because of its gradual
progressive development and the problems of definition of a new case. Therefore
there is little data. It is estimated, from surveys mostly confined to developed
countries, that 1 in 10 of the population who are 60 years or older have significant
clinical problems that can be attributed to osteoarthritis. For both males and females
the incidence of osteoarthritis rises steeply after the age of 50 peaking in the 70-79
age group. The incidence of osteoarthritis in the knee is high in both sexes with
women experiencing particularly high levels.
Figure Incidence of symptomatic hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis by age and
gender USA 1995.
Source: Olivera et al 1995.
Prevalence studies are difficult to directly compare because of differences in age
group included, inclusion and diagnostic criteria. For similar age groups and using
30 August Final Draft for review 16
radiographic diagnosis the prevalence of osteoarthritis hip was 9.90 % in the
Netherlands and 3.8% in Sweden. The tables below show standardised prevalence
rates for osteoarthritis of the hip, knee hand and unspecified osteoarthritis which were
derived from data collected in the current round of the Global Burden of Disease
project (GBD 2010).
Table Standardised prevalence rate OA hip per 100 population
Country Data collection
date**
Diagnosis Age Prevalence
Denmark 1993 Radiographic 20-99 4.20
Finland 1979 Symptomatic 30-99 5.12
Greece 1998 Symp/Radiographic 19-99 0.94
Hungary 2003 Self reported pain 14-69 20.29
Italy 2000* Symptomatic 65-99 7.70
2004* Symptomatic 18-91 1.61
Netherlands 1992 Self reported 55-95 13.11
1992 Symp/Radiographic 55-95 3.90
1998 Self reported 25-99 6.80
2001 Radiographic 55-99 9.90
Spain 2003 Symp/Radiographic 60-89 51.29
2003 Symptomatic 60-90 25.72
2003 Self reported 60-90 24.93
Sweden 1983 Radiographic 45-94 3.88
UK 1986 Self reported 16-99 5.01
2002 Self reported 45-84 8.92
2002 Symptomatic 65-99 26.28
* Not standardised, ** Mid point data collection period
30 August Final Draft for review 17
Table Standardised prevalence rate OA knee per 100 population
Country Data
collection
date**
Diagnosis Age Prevalence
Estonia 2005* Radiographic 34-55 3.74
Greece 1998 Symp/Radiographic19-99 6.55
Hungary 2003 Self-reported pain 14-69 28.30
Italy 2000* Symptomatic 65-99 29.80
2004* Symptomatic 18-91 5.39
Netherlands 1977 Radiographic 67-92 43.01
1992 Self reported 55-95 17.93
1992 Symp/Radiographic55-95 6.95
1998 Self reported 25-99 11.90
2001 Radiographic 55-99 18.80
Spain 2000 Symptomatic 20-99 11.72
2003 Symp/Radiographic60-89 71.10
2003 Symptomatic 60-90 40.39
2003 Self reported 60-90 35.12
Sweden 1981 Radiographic 67-92 53.87
UK 1986 Self reported 16-99 9.84
1987 Symptomatic 16-99 6.50
* Not standardised, ** Mid point data collection period
30 August Final Draft for review 18
Table Standardised prevalence rate OA not specified & hand per 100 population
Country Region Data
collection
date**
Diagnosis Age Prevalence
Finland Not
specified
1979 Symptomatic 30-99 15.80
France Not
specified
2005 Sym/Radiographic 40-75 6.30
Greece Not
specified
1998 Symp/Radiographic19-99 2.42
Hand 1998 Symp/Radiographic19-99 2.08
Italy Not
specified
2000 Self reported 18-99 21.91
Hand 2000* Symptomatic 65-99 14.90
Netherlands Not
specified
1995 Symptomatic 55-99 24.50
Sweden Not
specified
1977 Self reported 16-74 2.75
* Not standardised, ** Mid point data collection period
Radiographs will only detect those with severe osteoarthritis pathology and tell us
little about the patients’ symptoms or disability. Data from the European Health
surveys in 7 countries show a wide variation in the prevalence of self-reported doctor
diagnosed osteoarthritis. This ranges from less than 5% of respondents reporting ever
having osteoarthritis in Romania to nearly 25% in Hungary reporting ever having had
this condition. In all countries females have a higher prevalence of self reported OA
than males.
30 August Final Draft for review 19
Figure Prevalence of self-reported ever had doctor diagnosed osteoarthritis
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Ireland 2007 and Hungary 2009.
Age standardised self reported doctor diagnosed osteoarthritis varies from 2.8% in
Romania to 18.3% in Hungary.
Figure Age-standardised self reported doctor diagnosed osteoarthritis
Source: EHIS All surveys are from 2008 except Hungary 2009.
Prevalence self reported ever had doctor diagnosed osteoarthritis
1.5
3.1
2.9
4.1
9.4
10.1
18.6
4.5
6.5
8.1
13.0
15.4
16.0
23.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Romania
Ireland
Cyprus
Latvia
Malta
Czech Republic
Hungary
Perc
ent
Female
Male
Age standardised ever had doctor diagnosed OA
2.8
4.9
7.6
10.2 10.3
18.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Romania Cyprus Latvia Malta CzechRepublic
Hungary
Perc
ent
30 August Final Draft for review 20
The prevalence of osteoarthritis increases indefinitely with age, because the condition
is not at present reversible. Radiographic surveys show that osteoarthritis changes are
uncommon in those under the age of 40 but are seen in most over the age of 70. Men
are affected more often than women among those aged less than 45 years, whereas
women are affected more frequently among those aged 45 years and over (Pettersson
2002). Given that there are currently very few preventive and therapeutic options for
OA, with the aging of the European population, the burden of OA is set to rise.
Osteoarthritis co-morbidities and mortality
Depression and obesity have been shown in population studies to be associated with
osteoarthritis and chronic joint pain (Davis et al 1990; Von Korff et al 1996). Gastro-
intestinal consultations in primary care are more prevalent in those with osteoarthritis;
this may be due to the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Griffin 1998).
Mortality has not been a major area of investigation in osteoarthritis. A systematic
review found moderate evidence of increased mortality among persons with
osteoarthritis compared with the general population. Possible explanations for the
excess mortality included reduced levels of physical activity among persons with
osteoarthritis due to involvement of lower limb joints and the presence of comorbid
conditions, as well as adverse effects of medications used to treat symptomatic
osteoarthritis, particularly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Hochberg et al
2008).
30 August Final Draft for review 21
Rheumatoid arthritis
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common inflammatory disease of the joints. It
usually presents with pain, stiffness and symmetrical swelling of the small joints of
the hands and feet. Symptoms of fatigue, weight loss and malaise can occur and there
can also be systemic involvement such as vasculitis (inflammation of blood vessels).
It is usually progressive over time affecting further joints. The destructive disease
process causes irreversible changes to the bone and the joints become deformed, with
long-term pain and disability. The most widely used criteria are that from the
American College of Rheumatology (Arnett et al 1988). At least 4 of the following
criteria must be met:
• AM stiffness lasting > 1 hour
• Swelling of ≥ 3 joints
• Swelling of hand joints
• Symmetric joint involvement
• Radiographic changes
(erosion or bony decalcification)
• Presence of rheumatoid nodules
• Rheumatoid factor in serum
A more recent up date to this is the EULAR/ACR 2010 classification criteria for
Rheumatoid Arthritis (Aletaha et al 2010):
Target population (Who should be tested?)
1) have at least 1 joint with definite clinical synovitis (swelling)
2) with the synovitis not better explained by another disease
Add score of categories A–D; a score of 6/10 is needed for classification of
definite RA)
A. Joint involvement
1 large joint
2-10 large joints
0
1
30 August Final Draft for review 22
1-3 small joints (with or without involvement of large joints)
4-10 small joints (with or without involvement of large joints)
>10 joints (at least 1 small joint)
2
3
5
B. Serology (at least 1 test result is needed for classification)
Negative RF and negative ACPA
Low-positive RF or low-positive ACPA
High-positive RF or high-positive ACPA
0
2
3
C. Acute-phase reactants (at least 1 test result is needed)
Normal CRP and normal ESR
Abnormal CRP or abnormal ESR
0
1
D. Duration of symptoms
< 6 weeks
>= 6 weeks
0
1
Rheumatoid arthritis incidence and prevalence
Estimating the incidence of RA is problematic due to the delay between patients
experiencing symptoms and seeking medical help for these symptoms. This is a
problem as the ACR criteria depends on the time elapsed between symptom onset and
assessment of RA criteria, and on how the criteria are applied. The use of different
case definitions makes the estimates vary as widely as 25 to 115 per 100 000
(Carmona et al 2010). The annual incidence rate of RA recorded in studies varies
between 20 and 50 cases per 100,000 in Northern European countries but there are
indications that it may be lower in Southern European countries (Carbonell et al 2008,
Pedersen et al 2009).
Studies of the incidence and prevalence of RA suggest variations between different
populations even within the same country. Possible explanations include regional
variation in behavioural factors, climate, environmental exposures, RA diagnosis, and
genetic factors (Carmona et al 2010). There is conflicting evidence as to whether the
incidence of RA is decreasing however there does appear to be a decline in its
severity.
30 August Final Draft for review 23
The tables below show standardised incidence and prevalence rates for rheumatoid
arthritis which were derived from data collected in the Global Burden of Disease
project (GBD 2010). The annual incidence rate of RA for adults up to age 99 ranges
from 22 cases per 100,000 in the UK to 35 per 100,000 in Finland.
Table Standardised annual incidence rate of RA per 100,000 population
Country Data collection
date**
Age Incidence
Czech Republic 2003 19-90 34.5 (urban)
30.21 (rural)
Denmark 1998 15-99 29.56
Finland 1995 16-99 31.92
2000 16-99 35.78
1983* 16-99 39.00
France 1988 20-70 8.73
Sweden 2000 18-99 23.61
Spain 2008 18-99 8.34
UK 1991 15-99 23.26
1996 16-99 22.11
* Not standardised, ** Mid point data collection period
The standardised prevalence rates in studies for adults up to age 99 range from 0.32%
in France to 0.83% in the UK. The prevalence rates for females tend to be
considerably higher than the rate for males.
30 August Final Draft for review 24
Table Standardised prevalence rate RA per 100 population
Country Data collection
date**
Age Prevalence
Czech Republic 2003 16-99 0.64 (urban) 0.70
(rural
France 2005 16-99 0.20*
2002 18-99 0.32
2001 30-79 0.31
Greece 2008 0-99 0.76
1983 19-99 0.66
Hungary 2002 14-65 0.36
Ireland 1995 18-99 0.49
Italy 2004 18-91 0.46*
1992 16-99 0.33
Lithuania 2004 18-99 0.55
The Netherlands 2000 25-99 3.14
Spain 1998 20-99 0.52
Sweden 2006 20-99 0.66
1995 20-74 0.51*
1985 50-70 0.50*
1975 16-74 0.70
UK 1999 16-99 0.83
1994 23-68 0.30*
* Not standardised, ** Mid point data collection period
Data from the European Health surveys for 8 countries show a wide variation in the
prevalence of self-reported rheumatoid arthritis. This ranges from less than 4% of
female respondents reporting ever having doctor diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis in
Malta to over 26% in Hungary. In all countries females have higher prevalence of self
reported RA than males.
30 August Final Draft for review 25
Figure Self-reported rheumatoid arthritis by gender
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Estonia 2006, Hungary 2009
Figure Age-standardised self reported doctor diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis,
ever, past 12 months.
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Estonia 2006, Hungary 2009
Self reported ever had doctor diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis
2.0
1.8
3.5
3.4
6.6
7.7
14.0
16.9
3.5
4.5
6.9
8.2
11.1
13.5
20.3
26.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Malta
Cyprus
Romania
Estonia
Czech Republic
Latvia
Austria
Hungary
Percent
FemaleMale
Age standardised self reported doctor diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis
2.7 2.84.8
8.3
13.9
19.1
4.5 4.86.5
6.94.5
12.7
6.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
Malta
Cyprus
Estonia
Romania
Irelan
d
Czech
Repub
licLatv
ia
Austria
Hungary
Perc
ent
Ever had RAHad RA in past 12 months
30 August Final Draft for review 26
Rheumatoid arthritis co-morbidities and mortality
Infections
The rate of infections in general is increased in RA compared to other diseases. For
tuberculosis there is a 4-fold and for herpes zoster twice the risk. This is related to
both the immunosuppressant drugs used in the treatment of RA, and the level of
systemic inflammation (Carmona et al 2010).
Cardiovascular disease
Patients with RA show a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than
controls, and RA activity appears as a predictor of major adverse cardiovascular
events independent of other risk factors (Carmona et al 2010).
Lymphoma
The risk of lymphoma is increased in RA, and closely related to the degree of
inflammation, even in early RA. There is an increased risk of haematopoietic and lung
cancers in RA patients compared with the general population (Carmona et al 2010).
Depression and schizophrenia
Most studies show an increase of depression in RA. Schizophrenia shows the opposite
pattern: its occurrence is reduced in RA (Carmona et al 2010).
In the past 10 years there have been an increasing number of studies of mortality
associated with RA. Research has consistently shown evidence of increased mortality
in patients with RA compared to the expected rates in the general population. Possible
causes of higher mortality include increased risk from cardiovascular, respiratory and
infectious diseases. The effects of treatments such as non-steroidal anti-
inflammatories may also be a contributor (Gabriel & Michaud 2009).
30 August Final Draft for review 27
Low back pain
Low back pain is a major health and socioeconomic problem in Europe. Many people
will experience one or more episodes of low back pain in their lives. Low back pain is
usually defined as pain localised below the line of the 12th rib and above the inferior
gluteal folds, with or without leg pain. It is usually classified as being “specific” (that
is, associated with a known underlying pathology) or “non-specific”.
Specific back pain is defined as symptoms caused by a specific pathophysiologic
mechanism. Such specific causes account for about 10% of cases. Causes include:
degenerative conditions (e.g. herniated disc disease);
inflammatory conditions (e.g. ankylosing spondylitis);
infective causes (e.g. osteomyelitis);
neoplastic causes (e.g. metastases, primary benign or malignant tumours);
metabolic bone disease (e.g. vertebral fracture related to osteoporosis);
referred pain (e.g. from duodenal ulcer);
psychogenic pain (originating in the mind rather than the body);
trauma (e.g. fractures)
congenital (e.g. severe scoliosis, spina bifida).
Non-specific low back pain is defined as symptoms when there is no clearly defined
pathophysiologic cause. Non-specific low back pain accounts for about 90% of cases.
It is usually classified according to duration and recurrence:
• Acute back pain is of less than 6 weeks duration;
• Subacute is between 6 weeks and 3 months duration
• Chronic when it lasts more than 3 months.
• Frequent episodes are described as recurrent back pain.
Low back pain incidence and prevalence Epidemiological data for spinal disorders in general is often reported as low back pain
regardless of the diagnosis or cause which makes it difficult to make accurate
30 August Final Draft for review 28
assessments of the incidence of specific or non-specific back pain. Only few studies
report incidence data and there are often problems in comparing studies due to
differences in methodology and definitions used (Hoy et al 2010).
Table Incidence of low back pain
* Case definition =low back pain/problem over past year
Source: Adapted from Hoy et al 2010.
In relation to prevalence it is estimated that 12-30% of adults have low back pain at
any time and the lifetime prevalence varies between 60% and 85%. The prevalence of
specific causes is much lower than the prevalence of non- specific back pain and is
estimated in most industrialised countries as ranging between 2% and 8% (Hoy et al
2010).
Table shows standardised prevalence rates for low back pain which were derived from
data collected in the Global Burden of Disease project (GBD 2010).
Citation Country
Age
range
(years)
Inclusion criteria at
baseline
Incidence
(unadjusted)
(%)
Biering-Sorensen Denmark 30 to 60 Never had low back pain 6.3
Croft et al United
Kingdom 18 to 75 Never had low back pain 15.4
Croft et al United
Kingdom 18 to 75
No low back pain at
baseline 36.0
Hestbaek et al Denmark 30 to 50 No low back problems
over past year 19.3
30 August Final Draft for review 29
Table Standardised period prevalence rate of low back pain per 100 population
Country Data collection
date*
Age Prevalence
Belgium 2001 17-99 41.6 (LBP > 1 day)
Czech
Republic
2000 0-99 64.2 (back pain)
Denmark 1995 14-41 49.2
Finland 2003 14-18 36.4
France 2003 30-64 55.4
Germany 2003 18-99 61.8 (back pain)
Greece 2000 15-99 32.3
Italy 1999 65-99 58.9 (back pain)
Netherlands 2003 12-16 7.5 (LBP > 4 days)
Spain 2004 65-99 43.7 (LBP>1 day)
Sweden 1997 35-45 45.6
UK 1993 25-64 28.4 (LBP/ache > 1
day)
* Mid point data collection period
Data from the European Health surveys show a wide variation in the prevalence of
self-reported low back pain. This ranges from less than 12% of respondents reporting
ever having doctor diagnosed low back pain in France to nearly 33% in Austria
reporting ever having had this condition. There is quite a large variation between
countries as to the percentage of those with self-reported low back pain that have had
their condition diagnosed by a doctor. The highest proportion of people reporting ever
having had low back pain (including not diagnosed by a doctor) is in Slovenia
(40.7%).
30 August Final Draft for review 30
Figure Prevalence of self-reported low back pain
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Estonia 2006, Slovenia 2007 and
Hungary 2009
The prevalence of age standardised self reported doctor diagnosed low back pain
varies from 30.2% in Austria to 13.8% in Malta.
Self reported low back pain
0 10 20 30 40 50
France
Cyprus
Malta
Estonia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Latvia
Austria
Slovenia
Percent
Ever had doctor diagnosed Had in past 12 monthsEver had
30 August Final Draft for review 31
Figure Age standardised self reported ever had doctor diagnosed low back pain
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Estonia 2006 and Hungary 2009.
Low back pain and co-morbidities
A study carried out using the German National Health Survey found that orthopaedic
conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis are the most
common comorbidities associated with back pain, followed by cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular morbidities (Schneider et al 2007).
Age standardised ever had doctor diagnosed Low Back Pain
13.815.1
17.0 17.519.2
22.6
26.5
30.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Malta Cyprus Estonia Spain CzechRepublic
Hungary Latvia Austria
Perc
ent
30 August Final Draft for review 32
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is a disease in which the density and quality of bone are reduced,
leading to weakness of the skeleton and increased risk of fracture, particularly of the
spine, wrist, hip, pelvis and upper arm. Osteoporosis and associated fractures are an
important cause of morbidity and mortality.
Osteoporosis is defined as “a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone
mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue, leading to enhanced bone
fragility and a consequent increase in fracture risk” (WHO 1994i). Clinically,
osteoporosis is recognised by the occurrence of characteristic low-trauma fractures,
the best documented of these being hip, vertebral and distal forearm fractures.
The diagnostic criteria based on measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) are:
• Osteoporosis: a BMD value more than –2.5 standard deviations (SD) below
the mean BMD of young adult women (BMD T-score < -2.5).
• Established Osteoporosis: a BMD value T score <-2.5 and the presence of one
or more fragility fractures.
• Osteopenia (low bone mass): A BMD value between –1 and –2.5 SD below
the mean BMD of young adult women (-2.5 < BMD T-score < -1).
Osteoporosis incidence and prevalence
The incidence of osteoporosis is best measured as the incidence of fractures that are
the consequences of osteoporosis.
30 August Final Draft for review 33
Figure Number of hip fractures per year per 10,000 population - EU
Source: International Osteoporosis Foundation: http://www.osteofound.org
(Based on latest available annual data, ranging from 2000-2003).
The European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS) is a population-based
prospective study to determine the incidence of limb fracture by site and gender in
different regions of Europe. Men and women aged 50-79 years were recruited from
population registers in 31 European centres. The age-adjusted incidence of any limb
fracture was 7.3/1000 person-years [pyrs] in men and 19 per 1000 pyrs in women,
equivalent to a 2.5 times excess in women.
Number hip fractures per year per 10,000 population
0 5 10 15 20 25
SwedenSlovakia
AustriaDenmark Germany
CzechMalta
CyprusUK
FinlandItaly
HungarySloveniaBelgium
GreeceNetherlandsLuxembourg
LatviaEstoniaIreland
PortugalSpain
France
30 August Final Draft for review 34
Figure Age-standardised incidence of hip fracture by region and gender – EPOS
Source: Ismail et al 2002.
In women, the incidence of hip, humerus and distal forearm fracture increased with
age. In men only the incidence of hip and humerus fracture increased with age. In
women there was evidence of significant variation in the occurrence of hip, distal
forearm and humerus fractures across Europe, with incidence rates higher in
Scandinavia than in other European regions, though for distal forearm fracture the
incidence in east Europe was similar to that observed in Scandinavia. Among men,
there was no evidence of significant geographic variation in the occurrence of these
fractures (Ismail et al 2002).
Age-standardised incidence of hip fracture by region, gender
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Scandan
avia
Southern Euro
pe
Easter
n Europe
Western
Euro
pe
Inid
ence
frac
ture
/100
0 pe
rson
yea
rs
Men
Women
30 August Final Draft for review 35
Figure Age-standardised incidence of limb fracture by region, women -EPOS
Source: Ismail et al 2002
The incidence of osteoporosis varies by age and gender. In western populations, hip
fracture incidence rates increase exponentially with age. Above 50 years of age there
is a female to male incidence ratio of approximately 3:1. In the year 2006 in Vilnius
city the incidence of hip fractures was 205.61 for men and 375.45 for women in 100
000 of residents over the age of 50, standardized by age and sex (Tamulaitiene et al
2010). Data of the Lithuanian Osteoporosis Foundation are available for Vilnius, the
capital of Lithuania. In 2009, the number of hip fractures in the population aged over
50 years was 433 (320 cases in women and 113 in men). The hip fracture rate in
Vilnius was 24.7 cases per 10,000 population over 50 years and 29.5 hip fractures per
10,000 women aged over 50 years and 17 hip fractures per 10,000 men over 50
(Lithuanian Osteoporosis Foundation 2011) .
A recent article by Cooper et al (2011) looked at secular trends in the incidence of hip
and other osteoporotic fractures. It showed that in Scandinavia there were increases in
the incidence of hip fracture from 1950 to the early 1990s. Since this time rates appear
to have declined particularly in women. In the UK there appeared to be a stabilisation
of age standardised hip fracture incidence rates between 1989 and 1998. In the
Netherlands, Austria, Germany and Hungary there has been a stabilisation of hip
fracture incidence rates. Between 2000 and 2005 in Germany and Austria there
Age-standardised incidence of limb fracture by region, women 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
Scandanavia SouthernEurope
EasternEurope
WesternEurope In
cide
nce
of fr
actu
re/1
000
pers
on-
year
s HumerusDistal forearmHip
30 August Final Draft for review 36
appeared to be a decline in age-adjusted rates. In Italy incidence rates for men rose
significantly between 1980 and 1991. Spain also saw an increase in the incidence of
high fractures in both men and women (Cooper et al. 2011). In the period 1997 to
2006 the incidence of hip fractures in Denmark declined by approximately 20% in
both men and women aged 60 and over. The decrease in hip fracture rates was much
too large to be explained by the extent of anti-osteoporotic medication used in the
country (Abrahamsen & Vestergaard 2010).
The age standardised prevalence of self reported doctor diagnosed osteoporosis varies
from 5.3% in Spain to 1.9% in Estonia. It should be noted that since osteoporosis does
not manifest itself clinically except by presenting as a fragility fracture, there may be
varying degrees of under reporting depending use of availability of bone density
assessment.
Figure Prevalence of age standardised self-reported ever had doctor diagnosed
osteoporosis
Source: EHIS. All surveys are from 2008 except Estonia 2006.
Age standardised ever had doctor diagnosed Osteoporosis
1.9 2.0
2.8
4.8 4.95.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Estonia Malta CzechRepublic
Cyprus Austria Spain
Perc
ent
30 August Final Draft for review 37
Low bone density itself does not cause pain or deformity; its importance lies in the
fact that it greatly increases the risk of fracture, notably forearm, hip and vertebral
fracture. After the age of fifty the risk of sustaining one of these fractures is 40% in
women and 15% in men. This is termed the ‘lifetime fracture risk’. The combined
lifetime risk for hip, forearm and vertebral fractures coming to clinical attention is
around 40%, equivalent to the risk for cardiovascular disease (Kanis 2002).
The estimated lifetime probability of hip fracture at 50 years varies considerably
being highest in Sweden and Norway and lowest in Hungary, Portugal and Greece. In
all EU countries the probability is substantially higher in women than men.
Figure Lifetime probability of hip fracture at 50 years
Source: IOF 2008.
Osteoporosis co-morbidities and mortality
30 August Final Draft for review 38
Osteoporosis can lead to pain either as a direct result of the fracture or later from
secondary osteoarthritis and deformities. These include kyphosis (curvature of the
spine), loss of height and abdominal protrusion. Osteoporosis can result in increased
mortality. Mortality is increased by 20% in the first year after a hip fracture and also
after vertebral fracture, possibly as a result of diseases that increase the risk of
fractures and death. A prospective study of men and women aged 60 and over in
Australia (Bliuc et al 2009) showed that mmortality was increased for all ages for all
fractures except minor fractures where mortality only increased in those older than 75
years. Increased mortality risk persisted for 5 years for all fractures and up to 10 years
for hip fractures. Increases in absolute mortality that were above expected, for 5 years
after fracture, ranged from 1.3 to 13.2 per 100 person-years in women and from 2.7 to
22.3 per 100 person-years in men, depending on fracture type. Predictors of mortality
after any fragility fracture for both men and women included age, quadriceps
weakness, and subsequent fracture but not comorbidities. Low bone mineral density,
having smoked, and sway were identified as predictors for women and less physical
activity as a predictor for men.
30 August Final Draft for review 39
Gout
Gout is a common type of arthritis. The symptoms of gout include painful swelling
and inflammation in one or more of the joints. Gout usually affects the big toe, but it
can develop in any joint in the body. Gout is caused by a build-up of uric acid
(monosodium urate) in the body. Uric acid is a waste product that is produced during
the process of metabolism (when the body breaks down food to use as energy).
Usually, uric acid is excreted by the kidneys. People whose kidneys do not excrete
uric acid properly, or those who produce too much uric acid, can have high levels of
uric acid in their blood. If the level becomes very high, crystals form in the joints. The
crystals cause the joints to become inflamed and painful. Acute gout will typically
manifest itself as an acutely red, hot, and swollen joint with excruciating pain. These
acute gouty flare-ups respond well to treatment with oral anti-inflammatory medicines
and may be prevented with medication and diet changes. Recurrent bouts of acute
gout can lead to a degenerative form of chronic arthritis called gouty arthritis.
Gout can be viewed in four stages:
• Asymptomatic tissue deposition occurs when people have no overt
symptoms of gout, but do have hyperuricemia and the asymptomatic
deposition of crystals in tissues. The deposition of crystals, however, is
causing damage.
• Acute flares occur when urate crystals in the joint(s) cause acute
inflammation. A flare is characterized by pain, redness, swelling, and warmth
lasting days to weeks. Pain may be mild or excruciating. Most initial attacks
occur in lower extremities. The typical presentation in the metatarsophalageal
joint of the great toe (podagra) is the presenting joint for 50% of people with
gout. About 80% of people with gout do have podagra at some point. Uric acid
levels may be normal in about half of patients with an acute flare. Gout may
present differently in the elderly, with many joints affected.
• Intercritical segments occur after an acute flare has subsided, and a person
may enter a stage with clinically inactive disease before the next flare. The
person with gout continues to have hyperuricemia, which results in continued
30 August Final Draft for review 40
deposition of urate crystals in tissues and resulting damage. Intercritical
segments become shorter as the disease progresses.
• Chronic gout is characterized by chronic arthritis, with soreness and aching of
joints. People with gout may also get tophi (lumps of urate crystals deposited
in soft tissue)—usually in cooler areas of the body (e.g., elbows, ears, distal
finger joints).
The gold standard for diagnosing gout is aspiration and microscopic analysis for urate
crystals in joint fluid or a tophus. Urate crystals are negatively birefringent under
polarized light. Infection must be ruled out.
Gout can affect women, although men are three to four times more likely to develop it.
In men, the symptoms of gout usually begin between the ages of 40 and 60. In women,
the symptoms begin later, usually between 60 and 80 years of age.
Risk factors for gout include:
• Obesity
• Alcohol (particularly beer)
• Diet that is high in purines (chemicals found in certain foods, such as red meat
and seafood)
Treatment for gout involves relieving the symptoms of pain and trying to prevent
further episodes. This is done using a combination of medication and lifestyle changes.
Over time, many people reduce their uric acid levels sufficiently so that they no
longer experience any symptoms.
Frequent and recurring attacks of gout may eventually damage the joints permanently.
If untreated subsequent attacks may become more frequent and prolonged, and the
likelihood of developing permanent joint damage will be increased. Sometimes, the
crystals of uric acid can build up, causing small white lumps (tophi) to form
underneath the skin. Tophi are usually harmless and painless, but they can form in
awkward places, such as at the ends of fingers. It usually takes at least 10 years after
the first attack of gout for tophi to develop. They commonly develop on the fingers,
30 August Final Draft for review 41
forearms, ears and toes, but can occur anywhere in the body, including the spinal
canal or vocal cords. In rare cases, tophi can become inflamed, which can cause the
surrounding bone and tissue to become damaged. If tophi are large or painful, they
may result in difficulty doing everyday tasks, such as preparing food or dressing.
Occasionally, the uric acid crystals that cause gout can collect in the urinary tract,
resulting in kidney stones. Around 10-25% of people with gout develop kidney
stones. As well as affecting the patient physically, gout can also affect mood and work
and home life. The severe pain that gout causes can make it difficult to get around,
which can sometimes lead to feelings of depression or anxiety.
Gout incidence and prevalence
Gout is one of the most common types of arthritis that affects men. Data on the
incidence and prevalence of gout in Europe is limited. Arromdee et al (2002) studied
the US Rochester Epidemiology Project computerized medical record system and
found that the incidence of gout has increased over 2 decades. From 1977-1978, 18
cases of primary gout were newly diagnosed versus the 60 new cases between 1995-
1996. When adjusting the annual incidence rate for age and sex, it was found that the
rate of primary gout had significantly increased greater than 2-fold over the past 20
years. The age-adjusted annual incidence for all gout increased from 45/100,000 to
62.3/100,000. The incidence of secondary gout did not change.
A study in the UK demonstrated the overall prevalence of gout to be 1.4%. Gout
prevalence increased with age and was much higher among men (Mikuls et al 2005).
Consistent with this data a more recent study found the prevalence of gout in general
practice in UK and Germany (2000–5) was 1.4% (Annemans et al 2008). Table shows
the standardised prevalence of gout per 100 population from a review of studies
conducted by the Global Burden of Disease project (unpublished).
30 August Final Draft for review 42
Table Standardised prevalence of gout per 100 population
Country Data collection date*
Age Prevalence
Czech Republic
2003 16-99 0.30
Germany 2003 18-99 1.44 Greece 1998 19-99 0.85 (urban)
0.48 (rural) Italy 2004 18-99 0.46 Netherlands 1998 25-99 2.98 Spain 1985 40-50 7.03
(Hyperuricemia)
0.79 Sweden 1981 79 1.28 UK 1999 0-99 1.40
Gout co-morbidities and mortality
Patients with hyperuricemia, gout, or both, often experience high rates of
comorbidities (Riedel et al 2004). Gout and hyperuricemia are associated with insulin
resistance syndrome, obesity and hypertension. Patients with gout frequently suffer
hypertension, partly due to the common antecedent of chronic kidney failure.
Evidence suggests that hyperuricemia, even in the absence of gout, may directly
promote hypertension (Ouppatham et al 2008). Hyperuricemia would appear to have a
small but independent on cardiovascular disease (Johnson et al 2003). A prospective
study of gout and mortality found that men with gout have a higher risk of death from
all causes. Among men without preexisting coronary heart disease, the increased
mortality risk is primarily a result of an elevated risk of cardivascular death,
particularly from coronary hear disease (Choi & Curhan 2007).
30 August Final Draft for review 43
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is arthritis of unknown aetiology that begins before
the 16th birthday and persists for at least 6 weeks, other known conditions are
excluded (Petty et al 2004).
JIA incidence and prevalence
There is a north-south gradient in incidence of JIA. The incidence has been estimated
as 23 per 100,000 in Finland and 7 per 100,000 in Spain. Prevalence estimates range
from 140 per 100,000 in the Czech Republic and 16 per 100,000 in France.
Table summarizes the European studies on incidence of JIA. All studies are
practitioner- or register-based. The estimated incidence rates do not differ relevantly
from those published for juvenile chronic arthritis or juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in
older studies (for example, the incidence of juvenile chronic arthritis was found to be
10/100 000 in a population-based study from the U.K)
Practitioner or register based study Incidence per 100,000
Savolainen, Finland, 2003 23
Pruunsild, Estonia, 2007 22
Berntson, Norway, Finland, Sweden,
Denmark, Iceland, 2003
15
Riise, Norway, 2008 14
Hanova, Czech Republic, 2006 13
Modesto, Spain, 2010 7
Danner, France, 2006 3
The table below summarizes the European studies on prevalence of JIA. All studies
were practitioner or register-based.
30 August Final Draft for review 44
Practitioner or register based study Prevalence per
100,000 Pruunsild, Estonia, 2007 84 Hanova, Czech Republic, 2006 140 Modesto, Spain, 2010 40 Danner, France, 2006 20 Solau-Gervais, France, 2010 16
JIA co-morbidities and mortality
Patients with JIA may have a higher risk of malignancy. Two recent studies observed
a higher number of malignancies in JIA cohorts (the Swedish study for the patients
identified during the last 20 years) than in reference groups (Bernatsky et al 2011;
Simard et al 2010). The risk was even more evident regarding lymphoproliferative
malignancies. Both, the study from Sweden and that from the U.S (Beukelman et al
2010) estimated risks of lymphoproliferative disorders in JIA, being regardless of
treatment received, up to fourfold higher than in the reference groups.
The JIA mortality rate has considerably decreased since the 1950s. The mortality rate
is far below 1%, with the highest rate still among the patients with systemic JIA.
Hashkes and colleagues (2010) showed recently, that the global mortality rate of
children with JIA no longer differs significantly from the mortality rate of the general
population.
30 August Final Draft for review 45
Work related musculoskeletal disorders and trauma
Musculoskeletal problems relating to occupational disease and accidents at work are
commonly referred as Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD). Work related MSDs include
“all musculoskeletal disorders that are induced or aggravated by work and the
circumstances of its performance” (WHO 2003). Most MSDs are chronic and only
occur after exposure to work based risk factors over a period of time. It is difficult to
obtain comparable comprehensive European data on MSDs due to differences in
definitions and the way work-related health disorders are recorded (WHO 2003i).
Sources of data include national statistics, insurance figures, national and European surveys
such as the European Working Conditions Survey, the Labour Force Survey and the European
Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS).
The European Working Conditions asks respondents about exposure in the workplace
to risk factors for the development of MSC. Workers in the EU are most commonly
exposed to repetitive hand or arm movements and prolonged standing or walking.
30 August Final Draft for review 46
Figure Workers exposure to risk factors for development of MSC
Source: European Working Conditions Survey 2005
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/ewcs/2005/index.htm
MSDs form a high proportion of occupational diseases. In 2005 they constituted 38%
of the total occupational diseases recorded by the European Occupational Disease
Statistics in 12 Member States.
Workers exposed to risk factors for MSC
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Malta
Irelan
d
Belgium
Luxe
mbourg
German
y
Austri
a
PolandLatv
ia UK
Netherl
ands
France
Denmar
k
Hunga
ryEU27
Sweden
Slovenia
Cypru
sSpa
inIta
ly
Slovakia
Estonia
Czech
Rep
ub
Bulgari
a
Lithu
ania
Portugal
Greec
e
Roman
ia
Finlan
d
Perc
ent e
xpos
ed
Vibrations
Painful or tiringpositions
Prolonged standingor walking
Carrying/movingheavy loads
Repetitive hand orarm movements
30 August Final Draft for review 47
Figure Proportional distribution of occupational diseases in EU, EODA 2005
Source: European Occupational Disease Statistics 2005.
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/dsis/hasaw/library
A good comparative source of data for estimating the scale of work related
musculoskeletal disorders in the European working population is the Self-reported
Work-related Illness (SWI) questionnaire module in the national Labour Force Survey
(LFS). In the 2007 Labour Force Survey conducted in the EU27, 8.6% of those aged
15-64 who worked (or had worked previously) reported a work-related health
problem in the past 12 months. Sixty percent of these were musculoskeletal problems.
In those with musculoskeletal problems of the hip, legs or feet 54% reported some
limitations in the ability to carry out daily activities and 19% reported considerable
limitations. In those with back problems 56% reported some limitations and 15%
considerable limitations.
Across the EU27 the average proportion of persons reporting musculoskeletal
disorders as their most serious work-related health problem was 54%, the lowest
proportion was in Bulgaria (37%) and highest in Germany (75%).
EODS proportion of occupational diseases 2005
0.5
5.1
20.9
12.8
14.37.1
38.1
Infections
Cancers
Neurologic al diseaes
Disease of sensoryorgansRespiratory diseases
Skin diseases
Musculoskeletal diseases
30 August Final Draft for review 48
Figure Percentage reporting most serious work related health problem in past 12
months to be MSD or stress, depression, anxiety, LFS 2007.
Source: Labour Force Survey 2007
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
With the exception of Latvia, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Finland
the proportion of those reporting MSDs in the past 12 months is higher in males than
females. The largest gender differences are in Latvia (18%), Malta (12%), Portugal
(9%) and Czech Republic (7%).
Percentage reporting most serious work-related health problem in past 12 months, 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Bulgaria
Romania
Lithuan
ia
Czech
Republic
FranceIta
lyUKEU27
Estonia
GreeceIre
land
Portugal
Netherla
nds
CyprusMalt
a
Belgium
Slovenia
Sweden
Denmark
Slovakia
HungaryLatvi
a
Luxembourg
Spain
Poland
Austria
Finland
German
y
Musculoskeletal disordersStress, depression, anxiety
30 August Final Draft for review 49
Figure Percentage persons reporting MSDs as most serious work-related health
problem in past 12 months by sex
Source: Labour Force Survey 2007
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
Work-related problems increased with age, the increase slowed in workers aged 55 to
64 which may be because unhealthy workers leave the workforce early (Eurostat
2010). This pattern is also true of those with MSD. The proportion of persons
reporting MSD as their most serious work-related disorder varies by age between
different countries. For example in Slovenia, Luxembourg well over 20% of those
affected is in the older 55-65 year age group. Sweden has the highest proportion in the
15-24 year age group.
Persons reporting MSDs as most serious work-related health problem in past 12 months by sex
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Bulgaria
Romania
Lithuan
ia
France
Czech
Repub
lic
Portugal UK
Italy
LatviaEU27
Greece
Irelan
d
Netherlan
ds
Slovenia
Estonia
BelgiumCypru
sMalt
a
Slovakia
SwedenSpain
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
Luxembourg
Finland
Austria
German
y
Perc
ent
MaleFemale
30 August Final Draft for review 50
Figure Persons reporting MSD as most serious work related disorder by age,
EUROSTAT 2010
Source: EUROSTAT 2010.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
Low educated workers reported work-related problems more often and were more
likely to report MSDs as the most serious work-related problem. In 68% of those with
low educational level with a work-related health problem MSD was the main problem.
For those in the high level of education classification this was true for 44%. With the
exception of Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland in all countries the proportion of
those reporting MSD is higher in those with lower education levels. In all countries
those with tertiary education have lower levels of reported MSDs. MSDs are most
Person reporting MSD as most serious work-related disorder by age, 2010
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
BulgariaRomaniaLithuania
CzechFrance
ItalyUK
EU27EstoniaIreland
GreecePortugal
NetherlandsCyprus
MaltaBelgiumSloveniaSweden
DenmarkSlovakiaHungary
LatviaLuxembourg
SpainPolandAustriaFinland
Germany
15-2425-3435-4445-6455-64
30 August Final Draft for review 51
often reported as the main work related health problem in manual workers and is least
reported in highly skilled non-manual workers.
Figure Persons reporting MSD as most serious work-related health problem in
the past 12 months by education, EUROSTAT 2010
Source: EUROSTAT 2010.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
In 2005 18.1% of non-fatal accidents reported to European work statistics were
attributable to “physical stress on the musculoskeletal system.” Non-fatal accidents
arising from “physical stress on the musculoskeletal system” occurred mostly
frequently in the construction industry (18.2 % of occurrences) and in health and
social work (10%).
Persons reporting MSD as most serious work-related health problem in the past 12 months by education
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
BulgariaRomaniaLithuania
CzechSlovakia
UKEstoniaIreland
ItalyHungary
FrancePortugal
MaltaEU27
NetherlandsGreecePoland
BelgiumSwedenCyprus
SpainLatvia
DenmarkAustria
LuxembourgFinland
SloveniaGermany
Pre-primary, primary & lowersecondary Upper secondary & post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
30 August Final Draft for review 52
Figure Top 5 modes of injury accounting for highest number of non-fatal
accidents at work, 2005
Source: European Commission. Causes and circumstances of accidents at work in the
EU 2008. Luxembourg 2009
The proportion of work related health problems that are related to the bone, joint and
muscle are highest in the construction industry and lowest in education.
Top 5 modes of injury accounting for highest number of non-fatal accidents at work, 2005
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Phys
ical
stre
ss -
on th
em
uscu
losk
elet
alsy
stem
Verti
cal m
otio
n,cr
ash
on o
rag
ains
t
Cont
act w
ithsh
arp
mat
eria
lag
ent (
knife
,bl
ade
etc.
)
Stru
ck b
y fa
lling
obje
ct
Horiz
onta
lm
otio
n, c
rash
on
or a
gain
st
30 August Final Draft for review 53
Figure Type of health related problem in past 12 months by occupation sector,
2007
Source: EUROSTAT 2010.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
The Labour Force Survey data shows that there has been a rapid fall in the number of
bone fractures in the EU-15 & Norway in the period 2000-2007. Amputations have
seen a fall in more recent years.
Type of work-related health problem in past 12 months by occupation sector
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other community, socialand personalservice activities
Health and social work
Education
Public administration and defence;compulsory social security
Real estate, renting & business activities
Financial intermediation
Transport, storage and communication
Hotels & restaurants
Wholesale retail trade, repair
Construction
Manufacturing
Bone, joint ormuscleStress, anxietyor depressionOther
30 August Final Draft for review 54
Figure Number of accidents at work by type of injury EU-15 + Norway (4 days
absence or more)
Source: EUROSTAT 2010.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
Number of accidents at work by type of injury EU-15 +Norway (4 days absence or more)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Num
ber i
n 1,
000s
Amputations Bone fractures
30 August Final Draft for review 55
Impact on population health - disability and mortality
Musculoskeletal conditions are the primary cause of disability in Europe. These
conditions affect people of all ages. In most musculoskeletal conditions, people pass
from having normal health to being at risk and then developing clinical manifestations.
They then may recover spontaneously or following treatment, or persist in a state of
long term impaired health. Many musculoskeletal conditions are persistent and
progressive and the person will move from an early and/or mild stage to a late and/or
severe stage. Some die prematurely as a result of the condition or co-morbidities,
although mortality is low in these conditions. The nature of the impact on the
individual will vary at each stage and this is described by the health state. A summary
measure of the burden of musculoskeletal conditions requires a model of the condition
encompassing the numbers of people within and moving between the different stages
as well as their health state at each stage of the condition.
The principal measurement of the burden of disease, Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs), is a summary measure of disease related morbidity and mortality. The
DALY combines in one measure the time lived with disability and the time lost due to
premature mortality. One DALY can be thought of as the loss of 1 year of “healthy”
life. DALYs used in burden measurement are the gap between current health status
and an ideal situation where everyone lives into old age free of disease and disability.
DALYs are calculated as the sum of the years of healthy life lost owing to premature
mortality (YLL) in the population and the years lived with disability (YLD) for
incident cases of the health condition. The YLL basically correspond to the number
of deaths multiplied by the standard life expectancy at the age at which death occurs.
The disability weight is derived from preferences shown by the general population for
different health states (Murray & Lopez 1996).
MSC & Disability Adjusted Life Years Using DALYs as a measure osteoarthritis is ranked 8th in the leading causes of disease
burden in the EU25 Countries.
30 August Final Draft for review 56
Figure Leading causes of burden of disease expressed in DALYs in EU25, 2004.
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2009.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates_country/en/index.ht
ml
Using age standardised DALYs Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia,
Lithuania and Hungary all show a relatively high burden of musculoskeletal disease
including rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. These countries have the lowest
GDP per capita in the EU27. This is compatible with the evidence that there is a
correlation between osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and socioeconomic conditions
(Sokka 2009; Young et al 2000).
Leading causes of burden of disease (DALYs) in EU25, 2004
02468
1012
Ischa
emic
heart
disea
se
Cerebr
ovas
cular
dise
ase
Unipola
r dep
ress
ive di
sord
ers
Alcoho
l use
disord
ers
Hearin
g loss
, adult
onse
t
Road t
raffic
accid
ents
Trac
hea, b
ronc
hus,
lung ca
ncers
Osteoa
rthrit
is
Cirrhos
is of
the liv
er
Self-in
flicted
injurie
s
Cause
Perc
ent o
f tot
al D
ALY
s
30 August Final Draft for review 57
Figure Age standardised DALYs Musculoskeletal disease, EU25, 2004
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2009.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates_country/en/index.ht
ml
DALYS Musculoskeletal disease, EU25, 2004
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
German
y
Austri
a
Greece Ita
ly
Luxe
mbour
g
Belgium
Sweden
Irelan
dSpa
in
Netherl
ands
Finlan
d
Fran
ce
Sloven
iaMalt
a
Denmark
Portug
al
United
King
dom
Cypru
s
Averag
e
Hunga
ry
Lithu
ania
Latvi
a
Roman
ia
Bulgari
a
Slovak
ia
Poland
No. D
ALYs
30 August Final Draft for review 58
Figure DALYs Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis EU25, 2004
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2009.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates_country/en/index.ht
ml
Many falls, particularly in the elderly are caused by or lead to musculoskeletal
conditions. Age is a major risk factor for fall injury. 30% of people over 65 and 50%
of those over 80 years fall each year (Skelton and Todd 2004). For women over 55
and men over 65 years, the age specific death and hospital admission rates for injury
increase exponentially with age. Over one third of women sustain one or more
osteoporotic fractures in their lifetime, the majority caused by a fall (WHO 1994).
Central and Eastern European countries have a higher than average number of
DALYS due to falls, this is true also of Luxembourg and Finland. Countries with the
lowest number of DALYS due to this cause include the UK, Netherlands and Cyprus.
DALYS Osteoarthritis & RA, EU25, 2004.
- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
GermanyAustriaGreece
ItalyLuxembourg
BelgiumSwedenIreland
SpainNetherlands
FinlandFrance
SloveniaMalta
DenmarkPortugal
United KingdomCyprus
Average Hungary
LithuaniaLatvia
RomaniaBulgariaSlovakia
Poland
No. DALYs
Osteoarthritis
Rheumatoidarthritis
30 August Final Draft for review 59
Figure DALYs due to falls EU25, 2004
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2009.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates_country/en/index.ht
ml
MSC & Years Lived with Disability The burden of a disease due to morbidity is expressed in the Global Burden of
Disease project as years lived with disability (YLDs), calculated as the incidence
multiplied by the average time spent with a disease, weighted for the extent of
associated disability caused by the disease (Murray & Lopez 1996). YLD data for
individual countries and specific conditions is not easily obtainable however there is
some data available through the WHO which is classified according to European
regions A, B and C.
The countries in each region are as follows:
EUR A
DALYS Falls EU25, 2004
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Cyprus
Netherlan
ds
United K
ingdom
German
y
Sweden
Spain
Irelan
dIta
ly
Denmark
Greece
Malta
Belgium
Austria
Portugal
France
Average
Luxembourg
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Hungary
Finland
Poland
Slovakia
Romania
Latvia
Lithuan
ia
No. D
ALY
s
30 August Final Draft for review 60
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
EUR B
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Poland,
Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
EUR C
Belarus, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine
In European A region musculoskeletal diseases are the third largest cause of disability
from non-communicable diseases after neuropsychiatric disorders and sense organ
disorders. For regions B and C musculoskeletal diseases rank fourth after
cardiovascular disease.
Figure Percentage of non-communicable disease YLDs by cause and European
region 2004.
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2004
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/YLD14_30_2004.xls
% Non-communicable disease YLDs by cause and European region 2004
05
1015202530354045
Neur
opsy
chia
tric
diso
rder
s
Sens
e or
gan
diso
rder
s
Mus
culo
skel
etal
dise
ases
Resp
irato
rydi
seas
es
Card
iova
scul
ardi
seas
es
Mal
igna
ntne
opla
sms
Diab
etes
mel
litus
Dige
stiv
edi
seas
es
Oth
er
Cause
% T
otal
NCD
YLD
EUR AEUR BEUR C
30 August Final Draft for review 61
The burden of musculoskeletal diseases as measured by YLDs is highest in the
European A region and European C region. This is true for all conditions except gout
where European C region has the lowest levels of gout related disability.
Figure YLDs due to musculoskeletal conditions by European region WHO 2004
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2004
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/YLD14_30_2004.xls
The burden of disability as measured by YLDs is higher in females than males across
all ages in all 3 regions except in the 0-4 age group and in the 30-44 year age group
for Region A. For both males and females the burden increases with age up to age 45-
59 when it starts to decline. The exception to this is in males in European region B
where there is a slight decline in the age 45-59 year age group. For males the burden
in young people (under 30) is highest in European region B. In females the burden
rises dramatically in the 45-59 age group in regions A and B. For both males and
females the burden is significantly higher in European region A for the older age
groups.
YLDs musculoskeletal diseases by European region 2004
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Musculoskel.Diseases
Osteoarthritis Rheumatoidarthritis
Othermusculoskeletal
disorders
Gout Low back pain
Cause
YLDs
(tho
usan
ds)
EUR AEUR BEUR C
30 August Final Draft for review 62
Figure YLDs musculoskeletal disease by age, sex & European region
Source: WHO Global Burden of Disease 2004
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/YLD14_30_2004.xls
YLDs musculoskeletal disease males by region
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
0-4 5-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-69 70-79 80+
Age
No. Y
LDs Eur A
Eur BEur C
YLDs musculoskeletal disease females by region
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
0-4 5-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-69 70-79 80+
Age
No. Y
LDs
30 August Final Draft for review 63
MSC related mortality Despite the widespread prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions and their significant
detrimental impact on the well-being of individuals and society they have not been
included among the top ten non-communicable diseases identified for action by the
WHO. This is primarily due to the low mortality from musculoskeletal conditions in
comparison with other health conditions. There is evidence however of increased
mortality associated with musculoskeletal conditions. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid
arthritis are associated with increased mortality due to an increased risk of co-
morbidities and the adverse effects of medication. Mortality rates are up to 20-24% in
the first year after a hip fracture and the greater risk of dying may persist for at least 5
years afterwards.
Data on mortality from musculoskeletal conditions is available from the WHO
Mortality database. Mortality data comes from the cause of death form which is
completed nationally for each death and used exclusively for statistical purpose.
WHO guidelines are used to classify and code causes of death. Accuracy in
diagnosing causes of death still varies from one country to another. The main reasons
for this are incorrect or systematic biases in diagnosis, incorrect or incomplete death
certificates, misinterpretation of ICD rules for selection of the underlying cause, and
variations in the use of coding categories for unknown and ill-defined causes.
The data shows that with the exception of the Slovak Republic the mortality rate from
musculoskeletal conditions is higher in females than males. The lowest mortality rates
for both men and women are in the Czech Republic. The highest rates for males are in
Denmark and for females are in the UK. The largest difference between males and
females is in Luxembourg (2.2) and the UK (1.3).
30 August Final Draft for review 64
Figure Deaths per 100,000 (standardized rates) diseases musculoskeletal system
by gender 2006.
Source: OECD Health Data 2009 derived from WHO Mortality Database.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/morttables/en/index.html.
The data is for 2006 except for Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, and Spain
where the data is for 2005.
The same data has been used to examine mortality rates due to fall injuries among the
elderly. People aged 80 and over have 6-fold higher mortality compared to elderly 65-
79 years, as they are not only more likely to fall but also more frail than others (Sethi
et al 2006). The variation in mortality rates due to falls is the high with Bulgaria,
Spain and Greece having the lowest rates ( less than 15) and Hungary, Czech
Republic and Finland the highest (over 100). This variation indicates a potential for
prevention of mortality arising from falls.
Diseases Musculoskeletal System. Deaths per 100,000 (standardised rates) by gender 2006
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Czech
Rep
ublic
Slovak R
epublic
Poland
German
y
Luxembo
urg
Austri
a
Greec
e
Sweden
Averag
e Ita
ly
Hungary
France
Finland
Netherl
ands
Irelan
dSpa
in
Denmar
k
United
Kingdo
m
Dea
ths
per 1
00,0
00 p
opul
atio
n
Female
Male
30 August Final Draft for review 65
Figure Age adjusted mortality rates due to fall injuries per 100,000 among
elderly, 3 year average 2002-2004.
Source: WHO mortality database 3 year average (2002-2004) adjusted by CEREPRI
(Centre for Research and Prevention of Injuries www.euroipn.org/cerepri. Cited in
Prevention of Falls Among Elderly by European Network for Safety Among Elderly
http://www.capic.org.uk/documents/FS_Falls.pdf
Age adjusted mortality rates due to fall injuries per 100,000 among elderly 3 year average 2002-2004
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
BulgariaSpain
Greece
Romania
Sweden UK
Estonia
Portugal
Slovakia
Netherl
ands
Lithuan
ia
France
German
y
Luxembo
urgIre
landLatv
ia
Average
Austria
Belgium
Poland
Denmark Ita
ly
Slovenia
Malta
Finland
Czech
Republic
Country
Mor
talit
y ra
te
30 August Final Draft for review 66
Determinants of Musculoskeletal Health
The musculoskeletal health of an individual is determined by the occurrence of
diseases and other health conditions, by lifestyle factors, by contextual factors (both
environmental and personal), and by the interaction of these. Environmental factors
include health and social interventions. These determinants influence the risk of a
person having a musculoskeletal condition and may influence the outcome of such a
condition. The determinants of musculoskeletal health are common to other major
non-communicable diseases therefore modifying these risk factors will not only
benefit musculoskeletal health but will have a much broader impact on the health of
individuals and the population. Influencing the determinants of musculoskeletal health
is central to strategies for the prevention and control of musculoskeletal conditions to
ensure optimal musculoskeletal health.
Examples of determinants of musculoskeletal health include:
Conditions and
problems
Personal Intrinsic
Personal Extrinsic
Environmental
Osteoarthritis Rheumatoid
arthritis Osteoporosis Back pain Musculoskeletal
trauma and injuries
Age Gender Genetics Diet BMI Alcohol Smoking Exercise Co-morbidities Education Psychological
assets
Housing Work type Personal transport
Natural
environment Man-made physical
environment Pollution,
sanitation, water,
air Health, social,
education systems Health, social,
educational
interventions
30 August Final Draft for review 67
Age Europe’s population is ageing due to falling birth rates and an increasing life
expectancy. Eurostat projections indicate that while the total population of the EU-25
will fall only slightly by 2050, the age structure will change dramatically. By 2050,
the EU will have 48 million less people of aged 15- to 64-year-olds and 58 million
more people aged 65 and over.
Figure Population pyramids EU-25 2004 and 2050
Source: EUROSTAT
(http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een/001/article_3624_en.htm)
30 August Final Draft for review 68
Across Europe the proportion of the population aged 65 years and over has increased
significantly in recent decades and continues to rise however the degree to which the
population is ageing varies. The proportion aged 65 and over is higher in those
Member States which joined the EU before May 2004 compared to those that joined
after that date. The oldest populations are in Germany and Greece, the youngest in
Ireland and Slovakia (WHO Health for All Database 2010).
Figure Percentage of population aged 65 years and over, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Slovakia, EU Members before and since 2004
5
10
15
20
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
GermanyGreeceIrelandSlovakiaEU members before May 2004 EU members since 2004 or 2007
% of population aged 65+ years
Source: WHO Health for All Database 2010 http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-
do/data-and-evidence/databases/european-health-for-all-database-hfa-db2
Obesity
There is growing evidence of the association between obesity and musculoskeletal
conditions (Woolf et al 2006). Obesity is associated with a range of disabling
conditions in adults and there is evidence that childhood obesity can have a significant
effect on a child’s musculoskeletal system (Anandacoomarasamy et al 2008, Shiri et
30 August Final Draft for review 69
al 2010, Tsiros et al 2011). Obesity rates vary substantially across the EU with the
lowest adult rate in Romania and the highest in the UK. Across all EU countries the
prevalence of obesity is higher in women than men (OECD 2010).
Figure Obesity rates among adults, 2008 (or nearest year available)
Source: OECD Health at a Glance: Europe 2010; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
The percentage of people who are overweight or obesity has increased in the EU and
across the majority of Member States obesity rates in adults have been increasing
(OECD Health Database 2010). In many EU-countries there is a strong inverse
association between obesity and socio-economic status, this is particularly true for
women. (Hulshof et al, 2003; Molarius 2003).
30 August Final Draft for review 70
Figure Percentage adults obese EU, various years, 1st year, 2nd year.
Source: OECD Health Data 2010; Eurostat Statistics Database; WHO Global
Infobase. Luxembourg, Slovak Republic (2008) and United Kingdom figures are
based on health examination surveys, rather than health interview surveys.
Physical activity and exercise
Physical activity is essential for good musculoskeletal health. It can increase bone
density in adolescents, maintain it in adults and slow its decline in old age. Physical
activity is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that result in
energy expenditure above resting level.
The average proportion of people in the EU 27 who say they never do any exercise or
do so very rarely is 24%. However this varies widely from 51% in Lithuania to 14%
in Germany. With the exception of Slovenia all the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe have higher than average levels of inactivity (European Commission 2007).
The degree to which children aged 11 and 15 undertake physical exercise varies
Increasing obesity rates among adults in EU countries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Romania
(2004,
2008
)
Switzerla
nd (199
7,200
7)
Italy
(1999
,2008
)
Norway
(199
8,200
8)
Sweden
1998,2
007)
Netherlan
ds (19
98,20
08)
France
(199
8,2008)
Denmark (2
000,200
5)
Bulgaria
(2001
, 200
8)
Austria (1
999,2
006)
Poland (1
996,2
004)
German
y (199
9,2005
)
Belgium (199
7,200
8)
Spain (1
997,2
006)
Portugal
(1999
,2006)
Cyprus (20
03, 20
08)
Finland (1
998,20
08)
Latvia (1
998, 2
008)
Slovak Rep
ublic1 (
1998,2
008)
Czech
Republic
(199
9,200
8)
Estonia
(2004,2
008)
Lithuan
ia (19
98,200
6)
Luxembourg1 (
1998,2
007)
Icelan
d (200
2,200
7)
Malta (
2002
,2008)
United K
ingdom1 (199
8,2008
)
Perc
ent
1st year2nd year
30 August Final Draft for review 71
significantly across Europe with Italy and France showing much lower levels of
physical activity in 11 and 15 year olds than the EU average (OECD 2009).
Figure Children age 11 and 15 years doing moderate to vigorous physical
activity in the past week 2005-06
37.520.0
12.020.0
18.015.5
21.011.512.5
15.716.5
14.015.016.0
14.013.513.0
16.011.0
13.518.3
21.510.0
15.510.510.0
11.59.511.5
15.011.5
47.044.5
42.532.5
28.528.0
26.526.026.025.525.025.0
23.523.5
23.022.522.522.522.522.522.322.022.0
21.521.521.020.5
18.018.0
15.515.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Slovak RepublicIrelandFinland
BulgariaDenmark
SpainLatvia
AustriaIceland
EUNetherlands
TurkeyHungaryLithuaniaSloveniaEstonia
GermanyMalta
RomaniaUnited Kingdom
BelgiumCzech Republic
Norw ayPoland
Sw edenPortugalGreeceFrance
ItalyLuxembourgSw itzerland
%
1 15 years 11 years
Source: OECD Health at a Glance 2009; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
Diet and nutrition
An adequate intake of calcium and Vitamin D is essential for bone formation and the
maintenance of musculoskeletal health. As the body is unable to produce calcium it
must be obtained from the diet. Low calcium intake is associated with low bone
mineral density. Vitamin D is required to help the body to absorb the calcium and
30 August Final Draft for review 72
regulate bone formation. Small amounts of vitamin D can be obtained through diet,
the majority is synthesised by the body via exposure of the skin to sunlight. Inadequate vitamin D can cause rickets, prevent children from attaining their
genetically programmed peak bone mass, contribute to and exacerbate osteoporosis in
adults, and cause osteomalacia. Adequate vitamin D is also important for proper
muscle functioning. Recent results from the European Male Ageing study (McBeth
2010) indicated that musculoskeletal pain is associated with very low levels of
Vitamin D in men. Recent epidemiological data indicate the high prevalence of
vitamin D inadequacy among elderly patients and especially among patients with
osteoporosis. The prevalence of low 25(OH)D levels (<20 ng/mL [50 nmol/L]) in
Europe has been estimated as (28%-100% of healthy and 70%-100% of hospitalized
adults) (Isaia et al 2003, McKenna 1992). Vitamin D inadequacy is particularly
common among patients with osteoporosis. A global study of vitamin D status in
postmenopausal women with osteoporosis showed that 24% had 25(OH)D levels less
than 10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L), with the highest prevalence reported in central and
southern Europe (Lips et al 2001). A study of Asian adults in the United Kingdom
showed that 82% had 25(OH)D levels less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L) during the
summer , with the proportion increasing to 94% during the winter months (Pal 2003).
Alcohol
Consumption of alcohol is related to over 60 medical conditions, including the
increased risk of some skeletal conditions, such as fractures and muscle diseases
(Anderson & Baumberg, 2006). There is some evidence that women with low levels
of alcohol intake have higher bone density than women with higher levels of alcohol
intake (Lu et al 2010) and that moderate alcohol consumption may decrease the risk
for RA and RA progression (Lu et al 2010). This may be because moderate alcohol
consumption may be associated with reduced levels of some systemic markers of
inflammation. Indirectly alcohol consumption influences prognosis in musculoskeletal
patients due to an increased risk of comorbidity (i.e. cardiovascular diseases, impaired
immune system).
30 August Final Draft for review 73
Consumption of alcohol varies considerably across the EU. In the EU an average of
11 litres of pure alcohol is consumed per adult each year. (Anderson & Baumberg,
2006). Over three quarters of European citizens drink alcohol (Anderson & Baumberg,
2006). Whilst most drinkers drink at low risk levels an estimated 15% of those that
consume alcohol are hazardous drinkers. Within Europe drinking patterns
traditionally show a north-south gradient with low consumption countries in Nordic
countries, the high consumption in Mediterranean countries (Leifman 2002). With
changes over the past decade this pattern is less clear cut. Whilst some countries e.g.
Italy, Spain and France have seen large decreases in the per capita consumption of
alcohol, other countries e.g. Iceland, Cyprus and Finland have seen large increases.
Figure Alcohol consumption among population aged 15 years and over
Source: OECD Health at a Glance: Europe 2010; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 74
Smoking
Smoking is a well-established environmental risk factor for the development of
rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Some studies have suggested that smoking also influences
RA disease severity but this remains controversial. There is evidence of an overall
negative association between smoking and osteoarthritis. In general across Europe
smoking prevalence is higher among men than women. In Cyprus, Romania, Portugal
and the three Baltic states this difference is more than two-fold. In the UK, Ireland
and Slovenia, the rates are approximately equal for both sexes. Over recent decades
the differences in smoking prevalence between men and women have been declining.
In Sweden the smoking prevalence among women is higher than among men. The
overall prevalence of smoking is higher among younger people than older generations.
Deprivation, including poverty and lower educational levels are related to higher rates
of smoking in the population (ASPECT, 2004).
Figure Daily smoking rates, 2008 (or nearest year available)
Source: OECD Health at a Glance: Europe 2010; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 75
Accidents and injuries - sport, occupational, RTAs, falls
There is a wide spectrum of trauma and injuries that affect the musculoskeletal system.
Injuries often occur in the workplace or are sports related. These injuries have not
only short term but also long term effects, for example they may increase the risk of
osteoarthritis in later life.
The majority of sports injuries are similar to injuries that normally occur in non-
athletes. Injuries occurring in sports and physical activities are usually mild and many
are never reported. More severe injuries may either be acute, chronic or overuse
injuries. The incidence of sports injuries has increased as levels of participation in
sport at recreational and professional levels increase. A large proportion of these
injuries are preventable.
The incidence and types of sports injuries vary greatly depending on the sport, the
number of people participating and the hours played. In some sports where high
speeds and forces are encountered, there is a much higher risk of serious injury. The
potential risks for injuries in sports seem to increase for all levels of athletes, with
increasing participation, intensity and demands, as well as longer training periods.
In the EU injuries related to sports activities accounted for 18% of all home and
leisure injuries that needed medical treatment in hospitals in 2010, almost 5.2 million
cases a year. Statistics on the incidence of sports injuries are inadequate and difficult
to compare as the majority of patients with sports injuries that attend medical facilities
do not have the sport or the mechanism of injury recorded. Insurance claims in some
countries give some indication (Eurosafe 2006).
Occupational injuries
Occupational injuries can be subdivided into trauma resulting from an acute or sudden
events (e.g., slips or falls) and musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) which result from
small, but additive damage to the musculoskeletal system caused by the performance
of repetitive tasks.
30 August Final Draft for review 76
Work-related MSDs account for the majority of all occupational illnesses. MSDs
related to occupation are predominately known as cumulative trauma disorders (CTD).
They may also be referred to as repetitive strain injuries (RSI). RSI is a catch-all term
for symptoms and signs, which are located in the neck, upper back, shoulder, arm,
elbow, hand, wrist and fingers. The symptoms may include pain, stiffness, tingling,
clumsiness, loss of co-ordination, loss of strength, skin discoloration, and temperature
differences (Bongers 2002).
Key risk factors, which have been identified for the development of occupational
injuries, are repetition, high force, awkward joint posture, direct pressure, vibration,
and prolonged restricted position (Leclerc 2004). For example, certain occupations
with forceful and repetitive use of the hands and arms such as electricians and meat
packers are associated with CTDs of the upper extremity such as tendinitis or nerve
entrapments. Psychological factors such as the psychological distress experienced by
workers exposed to a high level of physical stress and a low level of job control also
play a role.
There are large differences in the rate of work-related injuries across Europe. Some of
the factors that may influence the rate of work related accidents include the age
structure of the population and the work force, the types of industry, occupations and
systems for recording injuries. There are difficulties in establishing specific diagnoses
for many musculoskeletal disorders and difficulties in establishing whether a CTD
diagnosis is work-related or not however figures are useful for identifying high-risk
occupations.
Data from the WHO Health For All database indicates that with the exception of
Estonia and Slovenia, Eastern European countries have a lower than average
proportion of persons injured due to work related accidents. UK and Greece also have
lower than average injuries. Those countries with the highest levels of injury are
Luxembourg, Spain, Austria and Portugal. Again it must be emphasised that caution
needs to be taken in interpreting these figures due to differences in definitions and
reporting.
30 August Final Draft for review 77
Figure Persons injured due to work-related accidents per 100,000, last available
data
0 5000
2008Luxembourg2006Spain2008Austria2006Portugal2007Belgium2007Germany2004France2008Netherlands2007Finland2008Slovenia2008Malta2001Denmark2008Italy2008Czech Republic2007Ireland2007Sweden2008Estonia2008Cyprus2008Poland2008EU members since 2004 or 20072005United Kingdom2008Slovakia2008Hungary2003Greece2008Lithuania2008Latvia2005Bulgaria2007Romania
Persons injured due to work-related accidents per 100000, Last available
Source: WHO Health For All Database 2010 http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-
do/data-and-evidence/databases/european-health-for-all-database-hfa-db2.
Road traffic accidents
Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death and disabilities among young people in Europe. Vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists constitute 41% of all road deaths in the European Union. High vehicle speeds, roads and urban design place these road users at increased risk. Prevention initiatives include developing and enforcing legislation on key risk factors: limiting speed, reducing drink-driving, and increasing the use of seatbelts, child restraints and motorcycle helmets (Eurosafe 2011). Road traffic accidents are a common cause of musculoskeletal injury. These injuries are caused by both direct trauma and, in the case of ‘whiplash’, the acceleration / deceleration associated with a road traffic accident. These injuries are often very debilitating and require early assessment and treatment. Any area of the body can be injured and the severity is often dependent on the size and direction of the impact received. Common conditions caused by road traffic accidents are:
• Whiplash • Back pain • Thoracic (chest) pain
30 August Final Draft for review 78
• Shoulder pain • Knee pain • TMJ (jaw) pain
Changing lifestyles and the prevention of musculoskeletal conditions
Prevention of musculoskeletal conditions is strongly associated with good nutrition
and exercise. To reduce the enormous impact on the quality of life of individuals and
socio-economic impact on society related to musculoskeletal conditions, people at all
ages should be encouraged to follow a healthy lifestyle and to avoid the specific risks
related to musculoskeletal health. Lifestyles to optimise musculoskeletal health
include:
• Physical activity to maintain physical fitness
• Maintaining an ideal weight
• A balanced diet that meets the recommended daily allowance for calcium and
vitamin D
• The avoidance of smoking
• The balanced use of alcohol and avoidance of alcohol abuse
30 August Final Draft for review 79
Management of Musculoskeletal Conditions
This section considers the principles of management of MSC and the human and
physical resources required. This will enable an understanding of data on health
utilisation and the availability and access to resources related to the management of
musculoskeletal conditions which is considered in Chapter x.
The aim of the management of musculoskeletal conditions is to ensure that people
with these conditions can actively participate in their own care and manage their
problems themselves whenever possible. The aim is to provide tools and strategies for
people to control symptoms, manage the disease process, achieve optimum function
and to reduce the psychological and social consequences of the condition so that they
can participate as fully as possible in normal activities.
Education of patient
The aim of patient education is to enable them to:
• understand their disease, possible outcomes and treatment options
• know what they can do themselves to manage their problems such as healthy
lifestyle and problem-solving strategies
• make knowledge based decisions regarding the management of their disease.
Education is of particular importance in the management of musculoskeletal
conditions as many are recurrent or persistent and progressive and they have a
pervasive effect on people’s lives. Education can range from leaflets, web-based
information, educational sessions with a healthcare professional to the use of
cognitive behavioural strategies. The method needs to be tailored to the needs of the
individual to ensure it achieves its objective.
Lifestyle advice
Lifestyle factors are important in the causation and outcome of musculoskeletal
conditions. Physical activity, an ideal body weight, a balanced diet with adequate
30 August Final Draft for review 80
calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and a balanced use of alcohol are
recommended. Improving these lifestyle risk factors will improve musculoskeletal
health.
Drugs
Pharmacological therapies are important as part of controlling the common symptoms
of musculoskeletal conditions such as pain and stiffness and in managing the disease
process.
Analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs along with non-pharmacological
interventions such as physiotherapy and coping strategies are important in enabling
control of pain. There have been major advances in the last decade in the
development of drugs and strategies that can effectively control the disease process in
many people with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis. The
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis involves the early use of disease modifying drugs
such as methotrexate and targeted “biological” drugs such as antiTNF alpha is
required to achieve remission or low disease activity state. Bisphosphonates and
other drugs can reduce the risk of fracture by 50% in those at high risk.
Surgery
Surgical interventions can be very effective in controlling symptoms and improving
activities and participation. They can be used to:
• modify: e.g. tendon transfer, soft tissue procedures around a joint, spinal
fusion, osteotomy
• repair: e.g. fracture fixation, bone grafting, ligament repairs
• remove: e.g. menisectomy, discectomy, excision arthroplasty; and
• replace: e.g. arthroplasty (cemented, uncemented, unipolar, bipolar, total,
different surfaces etc).
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitative interventions are important to treat any impairments, compensate for
any impairments and to recognise and address personal factors. Interventions may be
30 August Final Draft for review 81
educational, behavioural or psychological. They may include physical fitness,
exercises, physical therapies, aids and devices.
Strategies to prevent MSC
The European Action Towards Better Musculoskeletal Health (BJD 2005) has
developed evidence-based strategies to prevent musculoskeletal problems and to
ensure that people with musculoskeletal conditions enjoy a life with fair quality as
independently as possible. The strategies bring together the evidence-based
interventions that have been identified for the different musculoskeletal conditions.
They are based on a review of the evidence from existing guidelines and systematic
reviews, along with the opinion of experts from across Europe in the areas of
rheumatology, orthopaedics, trauma, public health, health promotion and policy
implementation. In addition the views of people with musculoskeletal conditions have
been taken into account. The strategies are aimed at:
• the whole population to prevent these conditions where possible
• those individuals at highest risk of developing these conditions
• those who already have these conditions to reduce the impact that they have
upon them.
The strategies focus on recommendations that will maintain or improve
musculoskeletal health whatever the underlying condition. They combine what can be
achieved from evidence-based interventions with what those with musculoskeletal
conditions, their carers and representatives; and health care providers want to be
achieved. The full report, which includes the supporting evidence for these
recommendations, is available at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_projects/2000/promotion/fp_promotion_2000_fr
ep_15_en.pdf
For whole population
Everyone is at risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions, but to reduce the
enormous impact on the quality of life of individuals and socio-economic impact on
30 August Final Draft for review 82
society related to musculoskeletal conditions, people at all ages should be encouraged
to follow a bone and joint healthy lifestyle and to avoid the specific risks related to
musculoskeletal health.
These risk factors are common for many other non-communicable diseases and their
modification will therefore have a greater a broader benefit on health of the individual
and of the population.
• Physical activity to maintain physical fitness
• Maintaining an ideal weight
• Recommended daily allowance for calcium and vitamin D
• The avoidance of smoking
• The balanced use of alcohol and avoidance of alcohol abuse
• The promotion of accident prevention programmes for the avoidance of
musculoskeletal injuries
• Health promotion at the workplace and related to sports activities for the
avoidance of abnormal and overuse of the musculoskeletal system
• Greater public and individual awareness of the problems that relate
to the musculoskeletal system.
The At Risk Population
Those at greatest risk must be identified and encouraged to adopt measures taken to
reduce their risk. This requires a case finding approach for the different
musculoskeletal conditions aimed at identifying those who are most at risk.
Osteoarthritis
Those deemed most at risk, who include people aged 50+ years, the obese, and those
with abnormal biomechanics, a history of joint injury, intense sporting activities or
certain occupations
Rheumatoid arthritis
30 August Final Draft for review 83
Those with early inflammatory arthritis should be identified and assessed as soon as
possible, as many will progress to develop rheumatoid arthritis.
Back pain
All adults should be considered at risk. “Yellow flags” for persistence or recurrence
need to be looked for (“Red flags” are clues to significant pathology; “Yellow flags”
are predictors of poor outcome and are mainly psychosocial factors).
Osteoporosis
Assessment of fracture probability should be performed using risk factor profiling (e.g.
older people (65 years and over), men and women with strong risk factors such as
untreated hypogonadism, previous low trauma fracture, glucocorticoid therapy, MI
<19 kg/m2, maternal history of hip fracture, excess alcohol and smoking) and, where
indicated, bone density assessment.
Early Disease
Those with earliest features of a musculoskeletal condition should receive an early
and appropriate assessment of the cause of their problem. Once their needs have been
identified they should receive early and appropriate management and education in the
importance of self-management. This requires methods to ensure that those who have
the earliest features of the different musculoskeletal conditions are assessed by
someone with the appropriate competency and that the person should have timely
access to care that is appropriate to their needs.
Osteoarthritis
The strategies outlined for those at risk should be undertaken including education
programs to encourage self management. This should include information on the
condition, lifestyle and its treatment. There should be pain management including the
use of topical analgesics, simple analgesics and NSAIDs. Normal biomechanics
should be restored, including osteotomy, ligament and meniscal surgery where
indicated. Environmental adaptations in the home and workplace and the use of aids,
30 August Final Draft for review 84
braces or devices should be considered. The use of glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin
sulphate or hyaluronic acid and of I/A therapies (including corticosteroids, hyaluronic
acid and tidal irrigation) should be considered.
Rheumatoid arthritis
For those with the early stages of rheumatoid arthritis it is important that a correct
diagnosis is made by expert assessment within 6 weeks of onset of symptoms. Disease
modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment should be started in addition to
symptomatic therapy and rehabilitative interventions as soon the diagnosis of
rheumatoid arthritis is established. The choice of treatment should take into account
the presence of prognostic indicators supporting the use of more aggressive therapy.
Treatment should be closely monitored to ensure ideal disease control. There should
be education programmes to encourage self management. These should include
information on the condition, lifestyle and its treatment. Treatment should consider all
aspects of the effect of the condition on the person. People with rheumatoid arthritis
should be enabled to participate as fully as possible through rehabilitation and
modification of the work, home and leisure environment.
Back pain
There should be a strategy to encourage the population to change behaviour and
beliefs about back pain and on the importance of maintaining physical activity and
employment by those with acute or subacute back pain. On a background of public
awareness, health care professionals should learn to follow the appropriate guidelines
which recommend staying active; avoiding bed rest; using paracetamol, NSAIDs or
manual therapy and addressing “red” and “yellow” flags.
Osteoporosis
For the population with osteoporosis (BMD T score ≤ -2.5) there should be
educational and lifestyle advice programmes. For those identified as having a high
risk of fracture there should be appropriate pharmacological interventions. For older
people at high risk of falling there should be in addition a falls prevention programme.
Major musculoskeletal injuries
30 August Final Draft for review 85
There should be immediate accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment on the scene.
In addition there should be stabilisation of basic life functions; systemic pain
management; consideration of immobilisation, if unstable; early transportation to
centre with appropriate experience and equipment. Consider operative or non-
operative stabilisation of fractures; immediate operative treatment if further
deterioration is expected; adequate fluid and nutrition management; pulmonary,
cardiovascular and neurological complications. Prevent complications (infection,
thrombosis, embolism, heterotopic ossifications). Start early mobilisation and
rehabilitation.
Occupational musculoskeletal injuries
There should be early accurate diagnosis and treatment. In addition there should be
pain management including systemic and topical analgesics; partial work restriction.
Consider short-term immobilisation and the use of aids, braces or devices. Maintain
physical fitness during rehabilitation. Understand the mechanism of injury and
prevent future injuries by considering adaptation work place, transferring the patient
to another job or distinct job modification. Return to work early.
Sports injuries
There should be early accurate diagnosis and treatment. RICE - rest, ice, compression
and elevation. Pain management including systemic and topical analgesics. Consider
immobilisation, if unstable – early mobilisation, if stable; the use of aids, braces or
devices; immediate operative treatment if further deterioration is expected; operative
reconstruction of tendons, capsule and ligaments; operative or non-operative
stabilisation of fractures. Maintain physical fitness during rehabilitation. Return to
sport when pain free and able to carry out all skills required by the sport. Understand
the mechanism of injury and prevent future injuries. Consider adaptation of special
technique in sport.
Established Conditions
Those with a musculoskeletal condition should have fair (considers equity, timeliness
and ethics) opportunity of access to appropriate care which will reduce pain and the
30 August Final Draft for review 86
consequences of musculoskeletal conditions, with improvement in functioning,
activities and participation. These outcomes should be achieved in the most cost-
effective way possible for the appropriate environment. This requires that those who
have musculoskeletal conditions have access to appropriate health and social care, and
support in the home and workplace.
Most outcomes are best achieved with good pain management, disease management
and disease rehabilitation. These outcomes should be achieved in the most cost
effective way possible for the appropriate environment. This should be on the basis of
enabling people to recognise the early features of musculoskeletal conditions and to
know what to do, either managing the problem themselves or knowing when to seek
appropriate professional help. In addition people should be enabled to access the
skills necessary to manage and take responsibility for their own condition in the long
term and to be able to lead full and independent lives. The following approaches are
recommended from evidence and expert opinion for assessment and management to
achieve the best outcomes:
Osteoarthritis
The strategies outlined for those at risk should be undertaken including education
programs to encourage self management. These should include information on the
condition, lifestyle and its treatment. There should be pain management including the
use of topical analgesics, simple analgesics and anti-inflammatory analgesics
(NSAIDs). The use of glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate or hyaluronic acid
and of I/A therapies (including corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid and tidal irrigation)
should be considered. Normal biomechanics should be restored, including osteotomy,
ligament and meniscal surgery where indicated. Joint replacement surgery should be
considered for end-stage joint damage that is causing unacceptable pain or limitation
of function. Surgery should be timely. There should be rehabilitation programmes to
improve function, activities and participation. The use of aids, braces or devices
should be considered. Environmental adaptations in the home and workplace should
be considered.
Rheumatoid arthritis
30 August Final Draft for review 87
DMARD treatment should be continued in addition to symptomatic therapy and
rehabilitative interventions. Treatment should be expertly monitored to ensure ideal
disease control. The choice of treatment should take into account the presence of
prognostic indicators supporting the use of more aggressive therapy. Surgery should
be considered for end-stage joint damage that is causing unacceptable pain or
limitation of function. Those with late stage rheumatoid arthritis may have greater
surgical needs and a co-ordinated approach is required. Surgery should be timely.
Treatment should consider all aspects of the effect of the condition on the person.
There should be rehabilitation programmes and modification of the work, home and
leisure environment to enable people with rheumatoid arthritis to participate as fully
as possible.
Back pain
Effective treatments for subacute and chronic non-specific back pain are exercise
therapy, behavioural therapy including pain management or a combination of these.
Multi-disciplinary programs should be delivered for non-specific back pain if there is
no improvement with exercise or behavioural therapy. It is as yet unclear what the
optimal content of these programs is. Rehabilitation should be undertaken with
consideration and involvement of the workplace. Back pain of known cause (specific
back pain) needs specific management.
Osteoporosis
For those with established osteoporosis there are a number of key strategies that
depend on the severity and stage of the disease. The appropriate strategy will consist
of one or a combination of the following: education and lifestyle advice (as above),
analgesia when indicated, physiotherapy when indicated, pharmacological
intervention with bone active drugs, falls prevention programme in older people at
high risk of falling calcium and vitamin D supplementation in frail older people,
orthopaedic management of fracture when indicated, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation,
nutritional support, hip protectors for frail older people in residential care or nursing
homes
Major musculoskeletal injuries
30 August Final Draft for review 88
Pain management including systemic and topical analgesics. Consider definitive
operative treatment, including stabilisation, reconstruction of biomechanics,
arthroplasty, reattachment of limbs, amputation, and plastic surgery. Consider
definitive non-operative treatment, including use of aids, braces or devices or
prosthetic devices. Start early mobilisation and rehabilitation. Consider reintegration
into the workplace and society.
Occupational musculoskeletal injuries
Pain management including systemic and topical analgesics. Partial work restriction.
Consider the use of aids, braces or devices. Maintain physical fitness during the
rehabilitation. Understand the mechanism of injury and prevent future injuries by
considering modification of task and work organisation, transferring the patient to
another job or distinct job modification. Return to work early.
Sports injuries
Pain management including systemic and topical analgesics. Consider in depth
diagnosis, incl. MRI, diagnostic arthroscopy etc. Consider operative reconstruction of
tendons, capsule and ligaments. Consider operative or non-operative stabilisation of
fractures. Active rehabilitation with joint specific exercises. Maintain physical fitness
during the rehabilitation process. Return to sport when pain free and able to carry out
all skills required by the sport. Multi-disciplinary approach for the care of athletes
should involve coach, physiotherapist, physician, physiologist, psychologist,
nutritionist, podiatrist and biomechanics. Evaluate the mechanism of injury and
training errors to prevent future injuries. Based on understanding the rules, the
physiological stresses and the injury mechanism consider adaptation of training and
technique.
Multidisciplinary, multiprofessional team involved in the management of
musculoskeletal conditions
People with a musculoskeletal condition require a continuum of health services that
includes all levels, from the community in which they live, primary, secondary care
and sometimes specialist tertiary care (Woolf et al 2007). Services need to centre on
the needs of the individual with the musculoskeletal condition. These
30 August Final Draft for review 89
multidisciplinary and multiprofessional services need to be co-ordinated and
integrated so that the management of a musculoskeletal problem is seamless. In order
to achieve the best outcome for the individual it is important that a musculoskeletal
problem is assessed and managed by those with an appropriate level of expertise. The
management of any problem needs to be centred on the needs of the individual with
the musculoskeletal problem.
A range of practitioners manage musculoskeletal problems. Many conditions are
managed in primary care by general practitioners. Some conditions also need
specialist advice or care, such as rheumatologists, orthopaedic surgeons and
rehabilitation specialists. In addition physical therapists (physiotherapists,
chiropractors and osteopaths), occupational therapists, community pharmacists,
behavioural therapists (counsellors, psychologists and psychotherapists) and
complementary medicine practitioners (for example, acupuncturists and
aromatherapists) are often involved in the management of these problems. Specialist
nurses play an important role in rheumatology departments in some countries,
providing patient education and other expertise. Patient support groups also provide a
lot of information, usually written or on the web. The role of carers is also important
to recognise in the more persistent, progressive musculoskeletal conditions and they
need education to enable them to provide support.
30 August Final Draft for review 90
Health Services Utilisation
Musculoskeletal conditions are managed both in the community by primary and other
community-based healthcare services as well as in secondary care. They are a
common reason for primary care consultations. In secondary care they are mainly
managed as outpatients (ambulatory care). Inpatient care is required for complex
musculoskeletal conditions such as complicated rheumatoid arthritis or complicated
connective tissue diseases. Inpatient care is also required for intensive rehabilitation
programmes, for orthopaedic surgery and most commonly for arthroplasty and
fracture repair. In some Member States musculoskeletal conditions make up to 12%
of all hospital discharges. There are various indicators that can be used to measure
and monitor health care resource utilisation related to musculoskeletal conditions. In
this section variations and trends in health service utilisation for MSC across the EU
are described. The difficulties in obtaining comparative health service data across the
EU are also discussed.
Hospital services utilisation – average length of stay
Over the past 10 years in all European countries the average length of stay in hospital
for all causes has fallen from 8.3 to 7.2 days. Factors leading to this decline include
the use of less invasive surgical procedures, expansion of early discharge programmes
and changes in hospital payment methods (OECD 2010). Caution must be used in
interpreting average length of stay figures. For example in Finland the average length
of stay is high but this is because a large proportion of beds is allocated for
convalescent patients and long term care, for acute care the average length of stay is
relatively low (OECD 2010). There is a wide variation in the average length of stay
for musculoskeletal conditions across the EU. The longest average length of stay is in
Germany (12.8 days) and the shortest in Denmark (5.6 days). Countries in Eastern and
Central Europe tend to have longer average length of stay than those in Northern or
Southern Europe.
30 August Final Draft for review 91
Figure Average length of stay in days for MSC, 2007 or latest available
Source: WHO European Hospital Morbidity database 2010.
http://data.euro.who.int/hmdb/index.php.
Data from 2007 except Spain & Netherlands (2005), Italy Denmark (2006), Latvia,
Lithuania (2008).
Hospital services utilisation – hospital discharges
Data on hospital discharges is used widely as a measure of health services utilisation.
A hospital discharge is the formal release of a patient from a hospital after a
procedure or course of treatment. A discharge occurs whenever a patient leaves
because of finalisation of treatment, signs out against medical advice, transfers to
another health care institution or on death. A discharge can refer to in-patients or day
cases. Discharges by diagnosis refer to the principal diagnosis, i.e. the main condition
diagnosed at the end of the hospitalisation or day treatment. The main condition is the
one primarily responsible for the patient's need for treatment or investigation (for
Average length of stay in days for musculoskeletal system & connective tissues
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Denmark
United K
ingdomFran
ce
Netherl
ands
Luxembo
urgSpain
Belgium
Irelan
d
Finland
Italy
Slovenia
Cypru
s
Avera
ge
Lithuan
ia
Slovakia
Latvia
Austria
Hungar
y
Czech
Repu
blic
Poland
German
y
30 August Final Draft for review 92
additional details, see
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/Annexes/hlth_care_esms_an9.pdf).
Making international comparisons of hospital discharge statistics is complicated
because hospital activities are affected by a number of diverse factors including the
demand for hospital services, the capacity of hospitals to treat patients, the ability of
primary care to prevent avoidable hospital admissions and the availability of post-
acute care to provide rehabilitative and long-term care (OECD 2010). Differences in
national health information systems also affect the collection of these statistics.
Trends in hospital discharge rates vary widely across EU Member States. In some
countries such as Austria, Germany and Greece they have increased over the past 10
years, in some (e.g. Belgium, UK) they have remained stable and in others (e.g.
Denmark, Finland, Italy) they have declined. The reasons for these trends are complex
and include demographic change and changes in medical technologies and procedures
(OECD 2010).
In-patient care is used variably across Europe for the management of active or
complicated rheumatoid arthritis. In-patient care may also be used for arthroplasty,
(most commonly of hip or knee for osteoarthritis) and fragility fractures (typically of
the hip as a consequence of osteoporosis and a fall). In general, hospital discharge
data is of limited relevance to most musculoskeletal problems and conditions as they
are managed predominantly in primary care or as outpatients (ambulatory patients),
here indicators of outpatient, day case and GP care are more relevant.
Hospital discharges in the EU per 100,000 inhabitants are highest for circulatory,
respiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. Discharges as a percentage of all
discharges range from 8% (Cyprus) to 25% (Luxembourg) for circulatory conditions,
5% (Italy) to 18% (Slovenia) for respiratory conditions and 2% (Cyprus) to 12%
(Austria) for musculoskeletal conditions.
30 August Final Draft for review 93
Figure Hospital discharges by diagnosis per 100,000 population as percentage of
all discharges 2007
Source: EUROSTAT 2011
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/public_health/data_public_h
ealth/database
Hospital services utilisation - Age-standardised admission rates
Age standardised hospital admission rates allow for a comparison of hospital services
utilisation between countries taking into account differing population age structures.
There is a wide range in the age-standardised admission rates for musculoskeletal
conditions across EU Member States from a low of 1.8 in Cyprus to a high of 26.8 in
Austria.
Hospital discharges by diagnosis as % all hospital discharges
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CyprusMalta
IrelandPoland
BulgariaLithuaniaDenmarkRomaniaSlovenia
UnitedItaly
SpainFrance
NetherlandsFinland
HungaryCzech Republic
BelgiumGermany
LuxembourgAustria
Percent of all hospital discharges
Respiratory Circulatory Musculoskeletal
30 August Final Draft for review 94
Figure Age-standardised admission rate for MSC per 1,000 population, 2007 or
latest available
Source: WHO European Hospital Morbidity database 2010.
http://data.euro.who.int/hmdb/index.php.
Data from 2007 except Spain & Netherlands (2005), Italy Denmark (2006), Latvia,
Lithuania (2008).
Hospital services utilisation - day cases
The number of day cases for musculoskeletal conditions varies widely across EU
Member States. Eurostat defines day case as: medical and paramedical services
delivered to patients who are formally admitted for diagnosis, treatment or other types
of health care with the intention of discharging the patient on the same day. An
episode of care for a patient who is admitted as a day care patient and subsequently
stays overnight is classified as an overnight stay or other inpatient case
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/Annexes/hlth_care_esms_an9.pdf)
The highest number of day cases is in Belgium (16.5) and the lowest is in Germany
(0.1).
Age-standardised admission rate for diseases of the musculoskeletal system & connective tissue per 1000 population 2007 or latest available
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cypru
sSpain
Irelan
d
Poland
United K
ingdom
Netherl
ands
Denmark Ita
ly
Slovenia
Slovakia
Avera
ge
Lithuan
ia
France
Finland
Belgium
Latvia
Hungar
y
Czech
Repu
blic
German
y
Austria
30 August Final Draft for review 95
Figure In-patients and day cases for MSC per 1,000 population, 2007 or latest
available
Source: WHO European Hospital Morbidity database 2010.
http://data.euro.who.int/hmdb/index.php.
Data from 2007 except Spain & Netherlands (2005), Italy Denmark (2006), Latvia,
Lithuania (2008).
Variation in utilisation of hospital services for MSC
In order to interpret the data on admissions rates, average length of stay, in-patients
and day cases presented earlier it is useful to see how they relate to one another. The
utilisation of hospital services for musculoskeletal conditions varies considerably
between countries. There has been an overall trend for the number of day cases to
increase and the average length of stay to decrease over recent years. This is
consistent with trends in hospital services utilisation as a whole. In Europe between
1195 and 2008 the average number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell from 7.3
to 5.7. This was accompanied by a fall in the average length of stays (OECD 2010).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Austri
a
German
y
Luxembo
urg
Czech
Rep
ublic
Hungary
Finland
Belgium
Latvia
France
Lithuan
ia
Slovakia
Slovenia Ita
ly
Denmar
k
United
Kingdo
m
Netherl
ands
Poland
Irelan
dSpa
in
Cypru
s
In-patients per1,000 population
Day cases per1,000 population
30 August Final Draft for review 96
Across all member states progress in medical technologies has facilitated a move
towards more day surgery. Another factor in the increase in day cases is the
implementation of health cost containment policies in many countries (OECD 2010).
These trends are shown in the following graphs. Compared to the UK and the
Netherlands, the number of day cases is substantially less in Poland and Finland.
Please note that data provided by countries may contain some coding errors or be
affected by specific national practices of applying ICD codes for certain reasons of
hospitalisation. Within countries there may also be changes in coverage which affect
the apparent trend.
Figure Variation in utilisation of hospital services for MSC
Source: WHO European Hospital Morbidity database 2010.
http://data.euro.who.int/hmdb/index.php.
UK
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
In-patients per 1,000
ALOS
Day cases per 1,000
Age standardised admission rateper 1,000
30 August Final Draft for review 97
Poland
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Netherlands
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Finland
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
30 August Final Draft for review 98
Hospital services utilisation - Number of surgeries hip and knee arthroplasty
Data that is of direct relevance to MSC and has good availability is that relating to
arthroplasty. Data is available from the OECD on specific surgical procedures
including hip replacement (ICD-9-CM 81.51-81.53) and knee replacement (8 ICD-9-
CM 1.54-81.55). Other important sources are the European joint replacement register
(EAR) and national registers of joint replacement surgery. These can be accessed via
the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedic and Traumatology
(EFORT) website ( http://www.efort.org/E/05/01-50.asp ).
Hip replacement is usually a consequence of osteoarthritis or osteoporotic fracture.
The number of hip replacement procedures differ significantly across EU Member
States. The volume of surgeries is a product of:
• prevalence of the condition
• availability of appropriate medical resources
• Differences in clinical treatment guidelines and practices
• International mobility across EU borders
Low rates may point to under-treatment or may be due to good control of the
underlying systemic disease.
Scandinavia has the highest reported incidence of hip fracture worldwide (Cooper et
al 2011) so it would be expected that they would have a higher than average number
of hip replacements. The incidence of hip fracture tends to be lower in Southern
Europe so the lower than average number of hip replacement procedures in Spain and
Portugal is to be expected. Merx et al (2003) suggest that the substantial international
variation in hip replacement rates may be due not only to differences in the incidence
of hip fracture but also to differences in population age structure, health care systems,
expenditure on health per capita and different indication criteria for total hip
arthroplasty. Over the period 1998-2008 the number of hip replacements has
30 August Final Draft for review 99
increased rapidly in most European countries. On average the number of hip
replacements has increased by one third (OECD 2010).
Figure Hip replacement procedures
Source: Surgical procedures by ICD-9-CM, Hip replacement, Procedures per 100 000
population (in-patient) OECD Health Data 2009 - Version: November 09
The data in Table is from the Swedish hip register for the period 1992-2005. It shows
that primary osteoarthritis is the chief diagnosis for total hip replacement (THR)
across all age groups with over 75% of the total share peaking in the age group 60-75
years. Fracture as a diagnosis for THR increases with age, rising dramatically in the
over 75 year age group. Inflammatory arthritis as a cause for THR is high in the under
50 age group at over 17%.
Hip replacement, procedures per 100,000 population (in-patient) 2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Poland
Portug
al
Hungary
Spain
Irelan
dIta
ly
Averag
e
Finlan
d
United King
dom
Denmark
Netherlan
ds
Sweden
Luxe
mbourg
France
Belgium
Austria
German
y
Proc
edur
es
30 August Final Draft for review 100
Table Number of Primary Total Hip Replacements per Diagnosis and Age
Swedish Hip Register 1992-2005
Diagnosis < 50 years 50-59 years 60-75 years > 75 years Total
Share
Primary
osteoarthritis
53.5% 79.5% 81.6% 68.1% 75.7%
Fracture 3.5% 4.3% 8.2% 21.4% 11.7%
Inflammatory
arthritis
17.3% 6.6% 4.2% 2.2% 4.5%
Idiopathic femoral
head necrosis
6.3% 2.7% 2.0% 3.8% 2.9%
Childhood disease 13.7% 4.0% 0.8% 0.3% 1.7%
Secondary
osteoarthritis
1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 1.4% 0.9%
Tumor 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5%
Secondary arthritis
After trauma 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%
(missing) 2.3% 1.3% 1.9% 2.2% 1.9%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Knee replacement is usually a consequence of osteoarthritis. Considering data from
16 EU Member States (not including those in eastern and Central Europe), the number
of knee replacement procedures is highest in Finland and lowest in Ireland. As in hip
replacement there are a higher than average number of procedures in the Scandinavian
countries, Germany and the UK and lower in Italy and Portugal. Those factors
affecting knee replacements are likely to be similar to those raised by Merx et al
(2003) in relation to hip replacements. The number of knee replacement procedures
undertaken in Europe doubled in the period 1998-2008 (OECD 2010).
30 August Final Draft for review 101
Figure Knee replacement procedures
Source: Surgical procedures by ICD-9-CM, Knee replacement, Procedures per 100
000 population (in-patient) OECD Health Data 2009 - Version: November 09
Health Services Utilisation - Primary & Community Care
People with musculoskeletal complaints are frequent visitors to primary health care
centres, hospitals, and paramedical institutions (e.g. physiotherapy and chiropractic).
Comparison of GP utilisation between countries is limited because in some countries
the GP has much more of a gatekeeping function than in others. In Spain, Portugal,
Italy, Finland, Denmark, Norway, United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands the
GP has an explicit gatekeeping role (Kroneman et al 2006). In Luxemburg, Belgium,
Germany, Austria, France, Sweden and Greece direct access to most other services is
possible (Kroneman et al 2006).
Knee replacement procedures per 100,000 population 2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Irelan
d
Portuga
l
Hungary Ita
lySpain
France
Netherla
nds
Averag
e
Sweden UK
Luxembou
rg
Belgium
Germany
Finland
30 August Final Draft for review 102
Statistics from the Netherlands health service for 2009 showed that 13.3 % of patients
attending a GP for one or more episode of care do so for a musculoskeletal condition.
Data from the second Dutch national survey of general practice indicate neck and
upper extremity symptoms are common in Dutch general practice with GPs consulted
approximately seven times per week for a complaint relating to the neck or upper
extremity (Bot et al 2005). In Italy the frequency of visits to GPs for musculoskeletal
conditions ranges between 10% and 18% of total consultations (Cimmino 2007).
In the UK diseases of the musculoskeletal system are third behind diseases of the
respiratory and circulatory systems as causes for GP consultations by men. In women
they rank second after the respiratory system.
Figure The burden of MSC on primary care in the UK – consultation rates 2003
Source: Health Protection Agency. Health Protection in the 21st Century. London:
2005
30 August Final Draft for review 103
If infectious diseases are excluded musculoskeletal problems and conditions were the
commonest reason for GP consultation in the UK in 2003.
Figure The burden of MSC on primary care in the UK – consultation rates
for non-infectious disease 2003 per 100,000 population
Source: Health Protection Agency. Health Protection in the 21st Century. London:
2005
In the UK, in 2006,10.1 million patients consulted their GP at least once for MSC.
and one in seven of all recorded primary care consultations during 2006 were for a
musculoskeletal problem. One in four of the registered population consulted for a
musculoskeletal problem in that year, rising to more than one in three of older adults.
The back was the most common reason for consultation, followed by the knee, chest
and neck (Jordan et al 2010).
30 August Final Draft for review 104
In the UK across all age groups a higher percentage of women than men consult their
GP for MSC. In the 75 year age group over 35% of female registered patients
consulted their GP for a MSC in 2006.
Figure GP consultations for MSC by age and gender, UK 2006
Source: Royal College of Practitioners, Birmingham Research Unit. Annual
Prevalence Report 2006.
Occupational therapists, physiotherapists and chiropractors provide care for those
with MSC. It is very difficult to obtain comparable data across the EU on
consultations for MSC with these professionals. One source of data is the European
Health Interview Survey (EHIS) which asks a general question about visits to
physiotherapists, occupational therapists and chiropractors:
During the past 12 months, have you visited on your own behalf a…?
Physiotherapist
Percentage of registered patients consulting GP for MSC per annum, UK 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+
Age
Perc
ent
Male Female
30 August Final Draft for review 105
Occupational Therapist
Chiropractor
Given that the EHIS question does not relate directly to MSC caution is needed in
interpretation particularly in relation to the use of Occupational Therapists.
Physiotherapists work almost exclusively with MSC and therefore the data here is
more useful. In the Czech Republic nearly 14% of respondents had visited a
physiotherapist in the past 12 months this contrasts with Latvia where the figure was
less than 4%. In Wales 12% of respondents had visited a chiropodist in the previous
12 months.
Figure Percent respondents visited health provider in past 12 months
Source: EHIS; Wales National Health Survey; Austria National Health Survey
Human resources
A range of practitioners manage musculoskeletal problems. These include specialists,
general practitioners, community pharmacists, physical therapists (physiotherapists,
Percent respondents visited health provider in past 12 months
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Belgium
Latvia
Cyprus
Hungary
Malta
Austria
Wales
Slovenia
Czech Repub.
Percent
Physiotherapist
Chiropodist
Occupationaltherapist
30 August Final Draft for review 106
chiropractors, osteopaths), occupational therapists, behavioural therapists (counsellors,
psychologists and psychotherapists) and complementary medicine practitioners (for
example, acupuncturists and aromatherapists). Measuring human resources is
problematic because concepts used for medical specialties differ across the EU
Member States. In particular there are differences in the roles carried out by
associated health professionals which makes direct comparison of human resources
between countries problematic.Whilst on a national level there may be good access to
health professionals there may be large regional variations. This regional variation in
availability may affect the equity of access.
Rheumatologists
The number of practising rheumatologists varies widely across the EU. The highest
number per 100,000 inhabitants is found in France (4.2). This compares to less than 1
per 100,000 in Cyprus, Latvia and Ireland.
Figure.. Rheumatology physicians per 100,000 inhabitants 2006
Source: Eurostat 2011
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/public_health/database
Practising rheumatology physicians per 100,000 inhabitants, 2006
4.2
2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.32
1.8 1.8 1.71.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1
0.7 0.6 0.5
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
France
Estonia
Luxem
bourg
Denmark
Belgium
Greece
Poland
Sweden
Slovakia
UK (Engla
nd only
)
Averag
eMalt
a
Bulgaria
Czech
Rep
ublic
Lithua
nia
Netherl
ands
Romania
Portuga
l
Cypru
sLatv
ia
Irelan
d
30 August Final Draft for review 107
Orthopaedic Specialists
There are some problems in obtaining comparable data between countries on the
number of Orthopaedic specialists as some statistics refer to practising specialists,
others to licensed or registered. Current EUROSTAT data on the number of surgeons
is not disaggregated to allow the number of Orthopaedic surgeons per 100,000
inhabitants by country to be displayed. The figures displayed in Table must therefore
be interpreted with caution. Data on the number of orthopaedic specialists was
obtained from eumusc.net project collaborators in each country. Where possible the
figures refer to practising rather than registered specialists and refer to 2010. Figures
for the UK come from the British Orthopaedic Manpower census 2009
(http://www.boa.ac.uk/en/publications/orthopaedic-manpower-census/). Please note
that figures for Sweden and Germany refer to the number of orthopaedic specialists
with a specialist certificate not all of which may necessarily be practising.
Figure Orthopaedic specialists per 100,000 inhabitants 2010
Source: Data from eumusc.net collaborators in each country. Figures for the UK come
from the British Orthopaedic Manpower census 2009
http://www.boa.ac.uk/en/publications/orthopaedic-manpower-census/
Number orthopaedic specialists per 100,000 inhabitants
4 4 45
6
89 9
10 10
13
17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
France
Netherlan
ds UK
Czech
Repub
lic
Estonia
Finland
Austria
Portugal
BelgiumSpain
German
y
Sweden
30 August Final Draft for review 108
Occupational Therapists
The number of practising Occupational Therapists also varies widely across the EU27.
The role of the Occupational Therapist in relation to MSC varies significantly
between countries. The highest number per 100,000 inhabitants is in Sweden and
Denmark (100), there are less than 5 per 100,000 in Luxembourg and Italy.
Figure Number of practising Occupational Therapists per 100,000 inhabitants
2011
Source: Council for Occupational Therapists in the European Countries
www.cotec-europe.org
Number of practising occupational therapists per 100,000 inhabitants 2011
2 4 5 7 8 11 11 12 1421 21 25 29
42 43
60
100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Italy
Luxembourg
Latvia
Czech
Repub
licSpain
Greece
Cyprus
France
Portugal
Netherlan
ds
Austria
Slovenia UK
Finland
German
y
Belgium
Denmark
Sweden
30 August Final Draft for review 109
Physiotherapists
Again with Physiotherapists there is a large variation in the number per 100,000
inhabitants. The highest number is in Finland (234) and the lowest in Ireland (34).
Figure.. Number of Physiotherapists per 1000,000 inhabitants, 2005.
Source: European Region of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy 2005
Diagnostic equipment
There is a lack of data on equipment for diagnosing musculoskeletal conditions. There
is data for the EU27 on the number of MRI and CT scanners and examinations
however as these do not distinguish between their use for musculoskeletal and other
conditions they are of limited use. There is some data on the number of diagnostic
DXA scanners in EU.
Number of Physiotherapists per 100,000 inhabitants 2005
3447 55 60
69 73 7691
120
174 174 176
234
0
50
100
150
200
250
Irelan
d
Greece
Spain UKIta
ly
Austria
France
German
y
Netherlan
ds
Sweden
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
30 August Final Draft for review 110
The gold standard for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) is dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA). This non-invasive technique measures the bone mineral
content of the skeleton. DXA measurements are used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis
and are used in assessing the probability of future fractures, the lower the bone
density, the higher the risk for fracture. Diagnostic DXA are also used to monitor
response to treatment. The chart in Figure is from a publication by the International
Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and shows the estimated number of DXA scanners per
country in 2007. The IOF quote the recommended number of DXA scanners per
million population of 10.6 (calculated by Kanjis et al 2005). The chart indicates that
almost 40% of EU member states fall below this target.
Figure Number of diagnostic DXA scanners in the EU per million population
2007.
30 August Final Draft for review 111
Drug use
In recent years, for the majority of MSC, there has been considerable progress in
medical and surgical management techniques leading to a reduction in the pain and
disability arising from these conditions. In particular there have been significant
advances in the effectiveness of treatments for RA and there is evidence to suggest
that the improvement in the health status of those with RA can be attributed to the
more aggressive use of and increased accessibility to, these treatments (Heiberg et al
2005;Krishnan & Fries 2003; Uhlig et al 2008).
Treatment of RA focuses on the suppression of inflammation. It is treated with non-
steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) usually in combination with disease
modifying antirrheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In the late 1990s so called ‘biologics’
such as TNF inhibitors were introduced. They have a strong effect on inflammation
and can prevent or slow the progression of joint erosion.
Across the EU in recent decades there has been an upward trend in expenditure on
pharmaceuticals. There is a wide variation between different countries. Factors which
contribute to this variation include (Lambrelli & O’Donnell 2009; Nolte et al 2010):
• Differences in the demography and health status of the population e.g.
proportion of elderly in the population.
• Differences in organization and financing of pharmaceuticals supplies e.g.
reimbursement policies.
• Cultural differences in the use of medication.
• Differences in clinical practice e.g. differences in prescribing practice.
• Differences in service organisation and delivery e.g. access to specialists.
Self-reported medication use for MSC
In a large scale pan European survey when asked about their reasons for long-term
medical treatment 24% stated that it was for long standing problems with muscles,
bones and joints and 8% for osteoporosis (European Commission 2007). This varies
widely by country with lower levels in France, Finland and Cyprus and higher levels
30 August Final Draft for review 112
in Slovakia, Hungary and Austria. With the exception of Slovenia and Bulgaria the
Central and Eastern European countries had higher than average reported levels of
long term treatment.
Figure Longterm treatment because of longstanding troubles with muscles,
bones and joints (arthritis, rheumatism)
Source: European Commission 2007
Data on self reported medication use for MCS is available from EHIS and National
Health Interview Surveys. The relevant EHIS questions are:
During the past two weeks, have you used any medicines (including dietary
supplements such as herbal medicines or vitamins) that were prescribed or
recommended for you by a doctor? Were they medicines for…?
F. Pain in the joints (arthrosis, arthritis)
G. Pain in the neck or back
During the past two weeks, have you used any medicines or dietary supplement or
herbal medicines or vitamins not prescribed or recommended by a doctor?
% reporting medical long term treatment for troubles with muscles, bones and joints
39
11
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Austria
Hungary
Slovakia
SpainLatvia
Romania
Estonia
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
Lithuania
Luxembourg
EU25Bulgaria
Ireland
ItalyNetherlands
Belgium
Greece
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
UK Denmark
MaltaCyprus
Finland
France
Perc
enta
ge
30 August Final Draft for review 113
Were they medicines or supplements for…?
A. Pain in the joints (arthrosis, arthritis)
This data was obtained for 7 countries. In Hungary, Czech Republic and Latvia over
12% of respondents reported prescribed medicine for back pain in the past 2 weeks.
Over 15% of respondents in Hungary reported taking prescribed medicine for pain in
joints, the rate was also high in the Czech Republic and Austria. Cyprus and Malta
showed very low levels over all.
Figure Percentage of all respondents taking medication for MSC in past 2 weeks
Source: EHIS and Austria National Health Surveys.
Austria 2006; Slovenia 2007; Czech Republic , Cyprus, Latvia, Malta 2008; Hungary
2009.
Pharmaceuticals consumption for MSC
Data on the consumption of pharmaceuticals is available form the OECD Health
database. This uses data obtained from national medicine sales register. There are a
Percentage of respondents taking prescribed and non-prescribed medications for MSC in past 2 weeks
3.4
4.8
8.59.6
12.1
14
15.5
2.8
5
9.7
12.5 12 12.2
0.3
2.53.2
5.9
2.3
8
5.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Cyprus Malta Slovenia Latvia Austria CzechRepub
Hungary
Perc
ent
Prescribed painin joints
Prescribed painin back
Non-prescribedpain in joints
30 August Final Draft for review 114
number of sources of under-reporting of drug sales in different countries. Sales data
may exclude drug consumption in hospitals and they may only cover drugs
reimbursed by public insurance schemes. In addition drug sales may be based on ex-
factory or wholesale prices rather than retail prices. Underestimates are reported for
France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Spain
(www.ecosante.fr/OCDEFRA;
http://www.healthindicators.eu/healthindicators/object_document/o5873n28314.html).
Most drugs used for MSC can also be used for different non MSC conditions and
therefore data is difficult to interpret.
A common problem when comparing drugs is that different medication can be of
different strengths and different potency. Simply comparing 1mg of one, with 1mg of
another can be confusing, particularly if different countries use different doses. The
Defined Daily Dose system (DDD) aims to solve this by relating all drug use to a
standardized unit which is analogous to one day's worth. The DDD is the assumed
average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults.
For example, paracetamol has a DDD of 3g, which means that an average patient who
takes paracetamol for pain relief uses 3 gram per day. DDDs are used to standardize
the comparative usage of various drugs between themselves or between different
health care environments.
Figure shows that consumption of drugs for the musculoskeletal system is highest in
Slovakia and lowest in the Netherlands. The irregular pattern of consumption over
time in Slovakia suggests that there may be data collection issues here – this is worthy
of further clarification. There has, in most countries, been an increase in consumption
of pharmaceutical drugs for the musculoskeletal system over the period 1999-2007. In
the Netherlands consumption has been relatively static over this period with a slight
decline.
30 August Final Draft for review 115
Figure Pharmaceutical consumption, Musculoskeletal System, Defined daily
dosage per 1000 inhabitants per day
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009, November 09
Figure shows that consumption of anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic non-steroidal
drugs is highest in Finland and lowest in the Netherlands. There has, in most countries,
been an increase in consumption over the period 1999-2007. In the Netherlands
consumption declined significantly between 2004-2007.
Pharmaceutical consumption musculoskeletal system, DDD per 1000 inhabitants
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
DDD
per 1
000
inha
bita
nts
per d
ay
Czech RepubDenmarkFinlandGermanyHungaryNetherlandsPortugalSlovakiaSweden
30 August Final Draft for review 116
Figure Pharmaceutical consumption, M01A-Antiinflammatory,antirheumatic
products & non-steroids, Defined daily dosage per 1000 inhabitants per day
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009, November 09
Pharmaceuticals sales for MSC
The same problems of underestimation mentioned above apply here. To compare
pharmaceutical sales purchasing power parity (PPP) is used. PPP is an economic
technique used when attempting to determine the relative values of two currencies. It
is useful because often the amount of goods a currency can purchase within two
nations varies greatly, based on availability of goods, demand for the goods, and other
factors. PPP solves this problem by taking some international measure and
determining the cost for that measure in each of the two currencies, then comparing
that amount. In this case it enables the comparison of pharmaceutical sales across 9
different countries. Whilst pharmaceutical consumption for MSC was lowest in the
Netherlands and Germany, Germany has higher sales than the Netherlands, Denmark
and Sweden.
Pharmaceutical consumption M01A antiinflam. antirheumatic prod. non-steroids, DDD per 1000 inhabitants
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
DDD
per 1
000
inha
bita
nts
per d
ay Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyHungaryNetherlandsPortugalSlovak RepublicSweden
30 August Final Draft for review 117
Figure Pharmaceutical sales, Musculoskeletal system per capita US$ PPP
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009
Figure shows that sales of anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic non-steroidal drugs are
highest in Portugal and Czech Republic and lowest in Sweden and Slovak Republic.
Sales have fluctuated over the period, Czech Republic shows a steady rise in sales.
This compares with a decline of sales in Portugal.
Pharmaceutical sales musculoskeletal system per capita US$ PPP
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
per c
apita
US$
PPP
Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyHungaryNetherlandsPortugalSlovak RepublicSweden
30 August Final Draft for review 118
Figure Pharmaceutical sales, M01A Anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic products
& non-steroids per capita US$ PPP
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009
The sales of pharmaceuticals for the musculoskeletal system as a percentage of total
pharmaceutical sales appear to have been relatively static between 1999 and 2007
with most countries showing a slight fall. Sales of pharmaceuticals for the
musculoskeletal system as a percentage of total sales were lowest in Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Sweden and highest in Portugal.
Pharmaceutical sales M01A antiinflam antirheumatic prod. non-steroids per capita US$ PPP
0
5
10
15
20
25
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
per c
apita
US$
PPP
Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyHungaryNetherlandsPortugalSlovak RepublicSweden
30 August Final Draft for review 119
Figure Pharmaceutical sales musculoskeletal system, % total sales
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009
The data in Figure suggests that with the exception of Germany the sales of anti
inflammatory, antirheumatic products (M01A) as a percentage of total sales fell in the
period 2002-2007.
Pharmaceutical sales musculoskeletal system, % total sales
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
% to
tal s
ales
Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyHungaryNetherlandsPortugalSlovak RepublicSweden
30 August Final Draft for review 120
Figure Pharmaceutical sales M01A Anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic products
& non-steroids as % total of sales
Source: OECD HEALTH DATA 2009
International variation in use of TNF inhibitors & DMARD
Jonsson et al (2008) examined the international variation in the use of TNF inhibitors
and of conventional DMARDS for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis for the period
2000-2006. High uptake was observed for Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland;
France Spain and the UK were around the EU 13 average. Germany Italy and
countries of central and Eastern Europe were below this average. Possible reasons for
differences proposed by the authors were:
• Differences in GDP (although there were large differences between countries
with similar GDP)
• Differences in relative price levels
• Differences in national preferences and priorities
• Variations in access to rheumatologists
Pharmaceutical sales M01A antiinflammatory, antirheumatic prod. Non-steroids % total sales
2.12.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.4
3.9
7.7
2.1 2.21.6 1.9 2.0
2.52.9 2.7
5.1
0
1
23
4
5
67
8
9
German
y
Sweden
France
Denmark
Belgium
Slovak R
epublic
Czech
Repub
lic
Finland
Portugal
% to
tal s
ales
20022007
30 August Final Draft for review 121
Variations in clinical guidelines have also been suggested as a reason for variation in
usage of biological treatments (Kobelt & Kasteng 2009).
30 August Final Draft for review 122
Impact on the individual
Musculoskeletal conditions can profoundly affect many aspects of the life of the
individual, including physical and mental well-being, economic well-being and
physical and emotional relationships. They impact on the life not only of the
individual but also of carers, family and friends.
The impact of musculoskeletal conditions on the individual can be considered within
the framework of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (ICF). The ICF attempts to provide a coherent view of health from a biological,
individual and social perspective. In this model a health condition represents anything
that affects health and includes diseases, congenital disorders and acquired conditions
such as injuries. A health condition can interact with all aspects of functioning. The
term functioning encompasses the structures and functions of the body including any
symptoms; activities that the person can do e.g. walking, lifting and what they
participate in e.g. playing sports, visiting friends. Functioning describes the
interaction between the individual with a health condition and the context is which
they live. Contextual factors represent the complete background of the individual’s
life and their environment including the physical, social and attitudinal environment
in which people live and personal factors such age and gender. Disability describes
impairments to the body, limitations of activity and restrictions to participation. This
model is useful when considering the effect of MSC on individuals and how it is
influenced by the environment in which they live.
Measuring the impact of disease on quality of life
There are a large number of instruments (chiefly questionnaires) that are used to
measure people’s quality of life. Among the most widely used are the SF36, EuroQol
5D and HAQ.
The SF-36 Health Survey is a generic questionnaire consisting of 36 items clustered
to measure eight health concepts
30 August Final Draft for review 123
• General Health Perceptions
• Physical Functioning
• Role Limitations due to Physical Health (Role-Physical)
• Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems (Role-Emotional)
• Social Functioning
• Mental Health
• Vitality
• Bodily Pain
The SF-36 describes quality of life in 8 generic health concepts, considered to be
universal and representing basic human functions and well-being. The score for each
of the 8 scales ranges from 0-100. A higher score indicates better health in that aspect.
The EQ 5D measures:
• Mobility
• Self Care
• Usual Activities
• Pain/discomfort
• Anxiety/depression
The HAQ is an instrument for the self reporting of functional disability (Fries et al
1982). It was developed as a measure of outcome in patients with a wide variety of
rheumatic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, juvenile rheumatoid
arthritis, lupus, scleroderma, ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia, and psoriatic
arthritis. The questions included cover:
• Dressing & grooming
• Arising
• Eating
• Walking
• Hygiene
• Reach
• Grip
• Activities
30 August Final Draft for review 124
• Pain VAS
• Patient global VAS
• Do you need help to do the task
• Do you use aids or appliances to do the task
Other instruments that have been developed for specific musculoskeletal conditions
e.g. RA, OA, osteoporosis, back pain, hand problems and upper limb problems.
The domains chosen are those considered appropriate to the condition and which meet
validity criteria. Most of these instruments mix function, activities and participation.
Examples include the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales and the Aberdeen Back
Pain Scale.
Chronic pain and physical disability impair social functioning and emotional well-
being which seriously impacts on quality of life. Musculoskeletal conditions are often
long term remitting and relapsing conditions meaning that patients and the doctors
treating them need to be able to adapt to and manage the changing disease state.
People with chronic musculoskeletal conditions experience pain, reduced mobility,
physical disability, fatigue and depression (Simpson et al 2005). The psycho-social
needs of people with long term physical conditions such as these are often overlooked
(Lempp et al 2011).
In a recent UK survey of people with arthritis (Arthritis Care 2010) the majority of
respondents experience severe levels of pain on a regular basis. The survey indicates
that people have to endure significant limitations on everyday life due to unmanaged
pain (Arthritis Care 2010). A study by Blake et al (1987) found that compared to
those without arthritis those with arthritis had a greater loss of sexual satisfaction over
time with fatigue and joint symptoms being major factors. In a more recent study 56%
of patients with RA reported that fatigue and pain placed limitations on sexual
intercourse (Hill et al 2002).
30 August Final Draft for review 125
Impact of Rheumatoid arthritis on Quality of Life
Assessment of QoL is recognised as an important primary outcome for RA (NICE
2009). A study carried out in Norway shows that RA affects all aspects of health as
measured by the SF-36 in both sexes and across all age groups. The effect of RA on
physical functioning was shown to be high with the loss of function increasing with
age. The effect of RA on mental health was shown to be low to moderate. With
increasing age the loss in mental function remained stable or declined.
Coping on a daily basis with RA can have a negative impact on mental health.
Depression has been found to be more common in people with RA than in controls
(Dickens et al 2003). In RA an important aspect is the unpredictability with patients
experiencing acute “flare-ups” and changes in their reactions to treatment. Pain during
flare-ups and fatigue can lead to low mood, depression and anxiety (Gettings 2010).
Depression can also rise because of reduced ability to carry out “normal” household
tasks, social interaction and recreational activities (Katz & Yelin 2001). The
psychological effects of RA can extend to patient’s partners, families and carers.
There is some evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy, meditation and exercise
can enable patients with RA to better manage the psychological burden associated
with their condition. (Gettings 2010)
A study published in 2011 (Lempp et al 2011) compared the quality of life in patients
with depression and those with early or established rheumatoid arthritis and the
general population. For each of the domains the means of SF-36 scores were
significantly lower in patients with early and established RA and depression
compared to the UK population ages 35-44 and 55-64. RA shows greater reductions
in mean scores for physical function, role physical and bodily pain compared to
depression. Those with early RA had lower mean scores for role physical and bodily
pain compared to patients with established RA. In RA there were strong correlations
between pain, vitality, social function and mental health. Mental health problems
appear in the earliest stages of RA. The author concludes that “mental health
problems in RA are more likely to reflect changes in vitality, social function and pain
rather than synovial inflammation itself” (Lempp et al 2011: 122) and that in the
30 August Final Draft for review 126
management of RA physical, mental and social problems should be assessed and
treated.
Figure Comparison of SF-36 scores in patients with early RA, established RA,
depression and the general UK population
Source: Lempp et al 2011.
(Comparison of three study groups and general reference population for SF-36
physical and mental domain scores. Mean values are shown for each domain)
Impact of Osteoarthritis and Osteoporosis on Quality of Life
A prospective study of City Council workers in Belgium showed that subjects with
OA and both OA and OP had significantly lower scores on all SF-36 dimensions
30 August Final Draft for review 127
compared with subjects without these conditions. The OP group had significantly
lower mean scores for physical functioning and pain compared with controls. Subjects
with both OA and OP had significantly lower values for physical functioning,
physical role and pain when compared with the OA and OP groups. Both diseases
have a major impact on health-related quality of life compared with that of people
without self-reported musculoskeletal diseases (Rebenda et al 2007).
Impact of hip fracture on Quality of Life
In one UK study after hip fracture up to 30% of patients had to give up independent
living and enter institutional care (Keene 1993). In the same study only 40% of
patients who walked unaided before the hip fracture could walk unaided one year
after hip fracture.
QoL in patients with MSC compared to other conditions
The International Quality of Life Assessment project examined the impact of multiple
chronic conditions on populations in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the
Netherlands, Norway and the US using the SF-36. This showed that arthritis, chronic
lung disease and congestive heart failure were the conditions with the highest impact
on SF-36 physical summary score. RA had a significant negative effect on the SF36
mental summary score. Arthritis had the highest impact on health related quality of
life in the general population (Alonso et al 2004).
A large survey study in the Netherlands (Sprangers et al 2000) which compared health
related quality of life (using SF-36 or SF-24) across a wide range of long term
conditions found that people with musculoskeletal conditions (included are back
impairments, RA, osteoarthritis/other joint complaints) reported the lowest levels of
physical functioning, role functioning and pain.
30 August Final Draft for review 128
Figure Netherlands – impact on quality of life of chronic disease
Netherlands 2000 - impact of chronic disease on quality of life
0102030405060708090
Uro
geni
tal c
ondi
tions
Hea
ring
impa
irmen
ts
Psy
chia
tric
diso
rder
s
Der
mat
olog
ic c
ondi
tions
Car
diov
ascu
lar c
ondi
tions
Can
cer
End
ocrin
olog
ic c
ondi
tions
Vis
ual i
mpa
irmen
ts
Chr
onic
resp
irato
rydi
seas
es
Gas
troin
test
inal
con
ditio
ns
Cer
ebro
vasc
ular
/Neu
rolo
gic
cond
ition
s
Ren
al d
isea
ses
Mus
culo
skel
etal
cond
ition
s
Sum
med
Ran
k Sc
ore
Source: Adapted from Sprangers et al.2000.
A Spanish study (Loza et al 2008) used data from the 1999-2000 national health
survey to assess health related quality of life (HRQOL) and functional ability across
groups of chronic diseases in Spain using the Health Assessment Questionnaire
(HAQ) and the SF-12. Looking at the effects of individual diseases on functional
disability (measured by the HAQ) weighted by disease prevalence, neurological
diseases caused the greatest impairment in the HAQ, followed by congenital
malformations, pulmonary diseases, and rheumatic diseases. For physical functioning
weighted by disease prevalence the adjusted SF-12 physical component scores were
worst in congenital malformations, followed by rheumatic diseases. The adjusted SF-
12 mental component scores were worst in psychiatric disorders, with rheumatic
diseases in fourth place.
30 August Final Draft for review 129
This study took into account not only the level of impairment but also the prevalence
of the disease. It found that Rheumatic diseases are among the diseases that produce
the largest impairment in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and daily
functioning. When the definition of the burden of disease includes a measure of
function and of HRQoL that is weighted by the prevalence of disease, rheumatic
diseases, as a group, may be considered on a par with major diseases such as
neurological, cardiac, or pulmonary diseases.
Comparing Quality of Life between musculoskeletal conditions
A Dutch study compared the quality of life and work in patients of working age with
rheumatoid arthritis and those with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) (Chorus et al 2003).
Physical health related QOL was reported to be worse in patients with RA than in
patients with AS but physical role functioning was similar for both diseases. Mental
health related QOL was more favourable in RA than in AS but social role functioning
was similar. A positive association was found between work and physical health
related QOL for those with RA and for those with AS.
Differences between countries in MSC related quality of life
There is a very little comparative data between countries on quality of life relating to
musculoskeletal conditions. One study compared Lithuania and Norway (Dadoniene
et al 2003). The study shows differences in employment, disease activity, physical
function, and self reported health status in patients with RA in the two countries.
Disease activity (DAS28) as well as functional impact (employment and HAQ) and
perceived general health (SF-36) were worse in patients from Lithuania. Likely
explanations presented were socioeconomic inequalities, differences in disease
management and access to specialised health care. Methodological issues regarding
instruments and data collection may also have contributed to some extent.
Improvements in Quality of Life
30 August Final Draft for review 130
In recent years new treatment options for Rheumatoid Arthritis have emerged
including the biological drugs. Access to therapies has also increased. This has led to
improvements in the quality of life of those with this condition including a reduction
in the effect on work and functional ability (Scott et al 2005).
A study conducted in Norway using the Oslo Rheumatoid Arthritis Register indicated
that the health status in RA improved across all dimensions of health in the period
1994-2004. The most pronounced improvement was in physical and global health
measures. Patients with more recent disease onset had better physical function, less
pain and higher utility than those with earlier onset (Uhlig et al 2008).
Musculoskeletal conditions and work disability
Work disability is a common consequence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the rates
of work disability higher than in the general population (adjusting for age and gender).
Disease related factors, demographic characteristics and level of education all
influence the work status of people with RA (Uhlig 2010).
A report produced by the OECD in 2009 (OECD 2009 i) examined sickness,
disability and work. It found that across the countries of the OECD people with
disabilities are far less likely to be employed than those without disabilities. People
with disability are twice as likely to be unemployed, even when there is no recession
and almost never leave longer-term disability benefit for employment. On average
across the OECD, the income of people with disability is 12% lower than the national
average. The exception is those people with disability that are highly educated who
tend to receive higher incomes.
30 August Final Draft for review 131
Figure Disability and level of income – differences by education
Source: OECD Sickness, disability and work: keeping on track in the economic
downturn. Background paper, High-Level Forum, Stockholm, 14-15 May, 2009
The percentage of disabled persons of working age who have a regular occupational
activity differs significantly between countries in Europe. However this may in part
be a result of differences in classification of “regular occupational activity” and how
such activity is recorded.
30 August Final Draft for review 132
Figure Disabled persons in regular occupational activity
Source: WHO Health For All Database 2010.
QUEST-RA study
The QUEST-RA study examined work disability in 8,039 patients with RA across 32
countries including 16 EU Member States (Sokka et al 2010). At the time of first
symptoms 86% of men and 64% of women under 65 were working. 37% of these
patients reported subsequent work disability due to RA. For those patients that had
their first symptoms in the 2000s the probability of continuing work at 5 years was
68%; this was similar between those from high GDP and low GDP countries. An
important finding was that patients who stopped working in high GDP countries had
better clinical status than patients who continued working in low GDP countries – this
Percentage of disabled persons of working age engaged in regular occupational activity, last year
available
0 20 40 60 80 100
Malta 2007
Cyprus 2002
Netherlands 2005
Estonia 2008
Czech Republic 2008
Poland 2007
Slovakia 2008
Hungary 2008
Finland 2008
Percent
30 August Final Draft for review 133
highlights the importance of cultural and economic factors in influencing levels of
work disability.
Figure Disease activity (DAS28) and physical function (HAQ) in men and women who were younger than 65 years old and continued working in high-GDP and low-GDP countries. CI, confidence interval; DAS28, disease activity
score using 28 joint counts; GDP, gross domestic product; HAQ, Health
Assessment Questionnaire.
Source: Sokka et al 2010
30 August Final Draft for review 134
TNF treatment of RA - sick leave & disability
A Swedish study investigated the effect of TNF antagonist treatment of patients with
RA on sick leave and disability pension as compared to a matched reference group
from the general population (Olofsson et al. 2010). The main finding in this study was
a continuous increase in sick leave point prevalence among patients with RA the year
before initiation of TNF antagonists, followed by a rapid decrease during the first 6
months of therapy. The level of sick leave point prevalence was then maintained
throughout the first treatment year. The point prevalence of sick leave for the
reference group was almost unchanged during the same period. There was a steady
increase in the point prevalence of disability pensions for patients with RA during the
whole study period which seemed unaffected by the initiation of TNF inhibitors. This
may be because disability pension often reflects irreversible work incapacity. The
study showed a substantial and sustained decrease in sick leave among RA-patients in
the first 12 months after start of treatment with TNF-antagonists.
30 August Final Draft for review 135
Figure Decrease in sick leave among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the
first 12 months after start of treatment
Source: Olofsson et al. 2010
Disability and poverty
A recent OECD study (2009i) shows higher poverty rates among working age people
with disabilities than among working age people without disabilities in all but 3
(Norway, Slovakia and Sweden) of the 21 countries included. Of those EU Member
States included in the study the relative poverty risk (poverty rate of working-age
people with a disability relative to that of working-age people without disabilities)
was highest in Ireland and lowest in the Netherlands.
People with disabilities and their family incur additional costs in order to achieve a
standard of living equivalent to that of non-disabled persons. For example they may
Days before and after treatment start
-360 -300 -240 -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Perc
enta
ge o
f sub
ject
s on
SL
0
10
20
30
40
50
RA casesControls
Treatment start
n=365
n=1460
p<0.001 p<0.001
p=1.0 p=0.91
Point prevalence of sick leave
30 August Final Draft for review 136
incur extra costs for transport, personal care and assistive devices (WHO 2011). A
study from Ireland (Cullinan et al 2010) estimated that these costs varied from 20-
30% of average weekly income (depending on the duration and severity of the
disability).
Impact on carers
Many patients with RA live at home and spouses, family and friends often play a
significant role as providers of informal care (Jacobi et al 2001). Families and partners
of patients with RA can be affected psychologically by the disease (Matheson et al
2009). There is also some evidence that it can in addition affect other aspects of their
health related quality of life (Werner et al 2004). The burden of care may be
substantial in terms of time especially when caring for those with advanced disease
(Werner et al 2004).
A study by Brouwer et al (2004) examined the nature and burden of care for informal
carers of patients with RA in The Netherlands. The study found that caregivers had
been caring for the RA patients for, on average, more than 11 years. They provided a
substantial amount of care (over 27 hours per week) and this was chiefly made up of
household activities and assistance with activities of daily living. 43.5% said they had
incurred additional costs related to informal care and 18.9% said they had reduced
leisure time due to informal care.
30 August Final Draft for review 137
Impact on Society
As a major cause of sick leave and work disability musculoskeletal conditions have a
significant impact on society. MSCs are the largest single cause of work loss in
Europe and their effect on worker participation gives rise to substantial work
productivity costs. Musculoskeletal conditions also give rise to significant health
resource utilisation with associated health and non-healthcare costs for society.
Musculoskeletal conditions are in the top 5 diagnostic groups in Europe in terms of
health care costs.
Health care costs
The table below sets out the health care costs which are associated with MSC. Whilst
not fully comprehensive it gives an indication of the range of costs incurred. Research
indicates that direct costs increase as functional capacity decreases (Schoels et al
2010).
Table.. Examples of health care costs arising from MSC
Source: Adapted from European Action Towards Better Musculoskeletal Health BJD
2005.
30 August Final Draft for review 138
Comparing health care costs across the EU is usually done at the aggregate level and
variations are examined in terms of, for example, purchasing power parities (PPPs)
per capita and percentage of GDP (Busse et al 2008). Comparison across countries of
the costs of individual services such as hip replacement is problematic because of
limitations in the comparability of data. Variations may be due to differences in:
• the definition of the start and end of a service (e.g. whether
rehabilitation following a hip replacement is part of the hospital
treatment or seen as a separate service)
• the type of service delivered, e.g. technologies used or the human
resources employed;
• treatment time and length of stay;
• input costs (e.g. costs of implant and hourly costs of personnel).
• How associated services (e.g. anaesthesia) are counted and charged
The following section presents some examples of health costs relating to MSCs
however the data does not allow for direct comparisons.
Cost of illness studies use the system of health accounts (SHA) to measure health care
cost by disease, health provider, age and gender of health care users. They are
“detailed descriptions of the monetary burden of disease on the basis of characteristics
of supply and demand” (Heijink et al 2008. p.50). The validity of comparing cost of
illness studies across countries has been debated (Polder et al 2005). It is clear
however that across the EU musculoskeletal conditions are amongst the largest
diagnostic groups in terms of health care expenditure.
30 August Final Draft for review 139
Figure Cost of illness in millions Euro Germany 2008
Figure Cost of illness in millions Euro as percentage of total illness costs,
Germany 2008
Source: Cost of illness accounts, Federal Statistical Office 2011
Germany Cost of illness in millions of Euro 2008
18,078
28,545 28,654
34,81436,973
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000Ne
opla
sms
Dise
ases
of
mus
culo
skel
etal
syst
em &
c. t
.
Men
tal &
beha
viou
ral
diso
rder
s
Dise
ases
of
dige
stiv
e sy
stem
Dise
ases
of
circ
ulat
ory
syst
em
Germany - Cost of illness in millions of Euro as % of total illnesss costs 2008
7.1
11.2
11.3
13.7
14.5
42.2
Neoplasms
Diseases of themusculoskeletal systemand connective tissueMental and behaviouraldisorders
Diseases of thedigestive system
Diseases of thecirculatory system
Other diagnoses
30 August Final Draft for review 140
The following are examples of direct health costs from musculoskeletal conditions:
• In Ireland in 2008 General Medical Services Scheme expenditure on drugs,
medicines and appliances for conditions relating to the musculoskeletal system
was 67.14 million euros (5.86 % of total expenditure). Expenditure on drugs
for musculoskeletal conditions was 3048 million euros (6.01% of total drug
expenditure).
• In 2006, the Belgian Federal Knowledge Centre in Healthcare (KCE)
estimated the direct cost of back pain in Belgium to be 272 million euros
(Manzina et al 2006).
• In the UK, 2003, the estimated cost of GP consultations for diseases of the
musculoskeletal system was £1,340 million; only costs of diseases of the
respiratory system (£1,790 mill.) and diseases of the circulatory system
(£1,350 mill.) were higher.
The International Osteoporosis Foundation produced a report on health services
utilisation and costs relating to osteoporosis and associated fractures and presented the
following table adapted from work by Kanis. Although given the differences in the
measurement of hospital costs between countries the results much be interpreted with
caution they do suggest that there is a wide variety in cost associated with vertebral
fracture.
30 August Final Draft for review 141
Table Hospital costs per vertebral fracture in the EU 2006
Source: Osteoporosis in the European Union 2008. International Osteoporosis
Foundation.
Obtaining comparable data on the direct and indirect costs of RA across Europe is
problematic. A study by Lundkvist et al (2008) produced estimates for the cost of RA
in Europe in 2006 based on the available prevalence and economic literature. These
estimates, derived using modelling, give some sense of the economic burden of RA:
• The estimated total cost of RA was 45 million euros.
• The estimated average annual cost per patient in was approximately 13,000
euros.
• The medical cost excluding drugs was nearly 9.5 million euros.
• The indirect cost totalled 16,584 euros.
30 August Final Draft for review 142
There is a wide variation between the annual national medical and drug costs for
Rheumatoid Arthritis. The data presented in Figure are estimates and it should be
noted that the studies on which the estimates are based were conducted at different
points in time. This is significant as drugs costs have tended to increase over time, in
particular after the introduction of the new biological agents. However it would
appear that medical costs are substantially higher in France, UK and Germany
compared to the rest of Europe. It is interesting to note that whilst drug costs are also
high in France and Germany this is not true of the UK which has relatively low drug
costs. Malta and Cyprus and countries in Central and Eastern Europe have much
lower medical and drug costs.
Figure.. Medical costs and drug costs of RA in million Euros 2006
Source: Lundvist, J, Kastang F, Kobelt G. 2008. The burden of RA and access to
treatment: health burden and costs. Eur J Health Econ 8(suppl 2): S49-S60.
Medical costs (excluding drugs) and drug costs of RA in million euros
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Malta
Cyprus
LuxembourgEstonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Slovak ia
Bulgaria
Czech Rep
Hungary
Ireland
Denmark
SwedenGreece
AustriaFinland
Belgium
Portugal
Romania
Netherlands
PolandSpain
Italy
Germany UK
France
Mill
ion
Euro
s
Medical costs
Drug costs
30 August Final Draft for review 143
The figure below shows the estimated annual cost of RA by the type of care. The
highest total costs are in Germany, France and Luxembourg. The lowest costs are in
the Central and Eastern European member states.
Figure Estimated annual cost of RA per patient by type of care
Source: Lundvist, J, Kastang F, Kobelt G. 2008. The burden of RA and access to
treatment: health burden and costs. 2008. Eur J Health Econ 8(suppl 2): S49-S60.
Adapted from Table 5.
A study carried out in Austria in 2010 calculated the direct costs of illness in patients
with advanced osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. The costs were reported
retrospectively by a self-administered questionnaire, covering the period of 12 months
prior to joint replacement. It was estimated that the total direct costs were 2747 Euro.
Medical costs amounted to 1148 Euro and non-medical costs 1599 Euro. The high
cost of late-stage osteoarthritis was due to the costs associated with the personal care
and household assistance caused by severe loss of function.
Estimated annual cost of RA per patient (Euro)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Germ
any
Fran
ce
Luxe
mbour
g
Irelan
d
Finla
nd
Belg
ium
Den
mark U
K Ita
ly
Aus
tria
Spain
Sweden
Neth
erlan
ds
Cyp
rus
Gree
ce
Portug
al
Slovenia
Malt
a
Cze
ch R
ep
Hun
gary
Poland
Estonia
Slovakia
Lithu
ania
Rom
ania
Latvi
a
Bulg
aria
Euro
s pe
r pat
ient
Indirect care
Informal care
Non-medical care
Medical cost(excluding drugsDrugs
30 August Final Draft for review 144
Work loss and productivity
Musculoskeletal conditions are a major cause of productivity loss. This loss can be
categorised as (Burton et al 2005):
• Work limitation (presenteeism): lost productivity because of diminished
capacity while at work.
• Work loss (absenteeism): time off work for those in paid work
• Work disability: permanent partial or complete disablement for work purposes
Productivity loss can be valued using several approaches. The most widely used are
the human capital approach and the friction costs method. The human capital
approach assumes that the productivity losses associated with a worker who stops
work due to illness or dies, are the average annual wage for their age and gender from
the time that they stop work until the age of 65. The Friction Cost approach assumes
that workers can be replaced and new workers trained to perform at the same level as
the injured or deceased worker within a period of time (usually 3-12 months). The
Friction cost approach assumes that workers will return to work after a health
intervention.
Stewart et al 2003 examined the lost productive time due to common pain conditions
(arthritis, back, headache, and other musculoskeletal pain) in the US. 13% of the total
workforce experienced a loss in productive time during a 2-week period due to a
common pain condition. Headache (5.4%), back pain (3.2%), arthritis pain (2.0%),
and other musculoskeletal pain (2.0%) were the most common pain conditions
resulting in lost productive time. The majority (76.6%) of lost productive time was
explained by reduced performance while at work and not work absence.
Workers who reported arthritis or back pain had mean lost productive times of 5.2
hours per week. In a study in the Netherlands individuals with neck or shoulder pain,
arm pain or both report productivity losses while at work of up to 36% (van den
Heuvel et al. 2007). Similar to the U.S example the majority of productivity losses
resulted from reduced performance at work and reduced working hours rather than
sickness absence.
30 August Final Draft for review 145
Comparing sickness absence across countries is problematic because of differences in
regulations governing sickness benefits and differences in social insurance schemes.
For example those who may be on sickness benefits in one country may in another
country be receiving unemployment or permanent disability benefits. There are very
few comparative studies of sickness absence in Europe. Higher levels of sickness
absence have been reported in public sector employees compared with those in the
private sector (Lund et al 2007). Sickness absence has also been shown to vary by
occupational group. A study comparing differences in sickness absence between
Sweden and Denmark showed an increased retention of employees with health
problems in the Swedish labour market compared to Denmark. The authors argued
that this could be due to differences in the sickness insurance legislation (Lund et al
2008). Indicators are needed for use across the EU27 which capture the occurrence,
duration and cause of sickness absence.
Temporary work loss according to diagnostic code is a core eumusc indicator however
obtaining this data from the EU27 has proved problematic. In the absence of this data
the subsequent figures show other alternative data to illustrate the impact of MSCs on
work loss. Figure shows data relating to work absence from the European Working
Conditions Survey which was conducted in 2010. The highest percentage of
respondents who had no days of absence from work for health problems in the past 12
months was in Romania (84.2%) the lowest was in Finland (34.5%). Poland had the
highest percentage of respondents who had been absent from work for more than 15
days in the past 12 months at 12.6%.
30 August Final Draft for review 146
Figure Work absence due to health problems 2011
Source: European Working Conditions Survey 2010
The Labour Force Survey ad hoc module 2007 examined sick leave in employed
people for different types of work related health problems (EUROSTAT 2009). Sick
leave of one day or more but less than one month was more likely among those with
breathing or lung problems (51%) and bone, joint or muscle problems which mainly
affects back (42%). Prolonged sickness absence, i.e. sick leave for one month or
more, was most likely among employed persons with a heart disease or attack, or
other problems in the circulatory system (29%), stress, depression or anxiety (25%)
and bone, joint or muscle problems of the hips, legs or feet (25%).
Again using data from the Labour Force Survey 2007 Figure shows sick leave in
those who reported musculoskeletal problems as their most serious health related
work problem in past 12 months. Of those with musculoskeletal problems nearly one
fifth took sick leave of one month or more.
Number of days absent from work in past 12 months due to health problems EWCS 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RO PT BU ES HU LV LT EE SK CY FR PL IE IT SI CZ LUEU27 UK BE NL AT SE DE DK MT FI
More than 151 to 15None
30 August Final Draft for review 147
Figure Sick leave in those reporting work related musculoskeletal health
problems in the past 12 months, employed workers, EU27 2007.
Source:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/health_safety_work/data/dat
abase
The following tables show some examples of lost work days due to MSDs using data
from national statistical offices.
Sick leave in those reporting work related musculoskeletal health problems in past 12 months,
employed workers, EU27 2007
42%
39%
19%
No sick leaveSick leave <1 monthSick leave >1 month
30 August Final Draft for review 148
Table Percentage of sick leave days attributed to MSDsMSDs
Country Year Percentage sick days
Austria 2007 24
Belgium 2008 40
Finland 2007 33
Romania 2007 22
Slovenia 2006 19
UK 2009 33
Sources:
Austria: Federal Bureau of statistics 2010.
Belgium: Securex 2008 cited in Musculoskeletal Disorders and Belgian Labour
Market. 2009. http://www.fitforworkeurope.eu/Downloads/Website-
Documents/ffw_Belgium311009.pdf
Finland: Bureau of Statistics 2010.
Romania: Todea, A. & Ferencz, A. (2007). Occupational musculoskeletal disorders in
Romania (statistics, legislation). Presentation. Retrieved 28 July 2009 from
ams.protectiamuncii.ro/conferinta/materiale/0111_todea_en.ppt cited in
Musculoskeletal Disorders and Romanian Labour Market. 2011.
http://www.fitforworkeurope.eu/Website-Documents/ffw_Romania_english.pdf
Slovenia: Eurofound
www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0611018s/at0511019q.htm.
UK: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh0910.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 149
Table Number of work days lost per annum due to MSDs (in millions)
Country Year No work days lost
Austria 2004 7.7
France 2006 7.0
Slovenia 2006 2.47
UK 2009 9.3
Sources work days lost:
Austria, France, Slovenia: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 2010.
OSH in figures: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU – Facts and figures.
Luxembourg 2010.
UK: Health & Safety executive
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/musculoskeletal/days-lost.htm
Table shows the average length of work absence due to MSDs. Sources of variation
in average length of absence may include demographic factors (MSDs occur more in
older age groups), the occupational mix (the occurrence of MSDs is higher in certain
industries) and health services (waiting time for health care may vary). Caution is
advised in interpreting this data as there are national variations in definitions used
when calculating work absence. In all countries listed the length of the average
absence due to MSD was 10 days or longer.
30 August Final Draft for review 150
Table Average duration of work absence due to MSD (days)
Country Year Total average
days
Male average
days
Female
average days
Austria 2007 10
Bulgaria 2004 13.2 13.0 13.5
Czech
Republic
2004 53 49.6 57.1
Denmark 1999 88 81.0 100.5
UK 2009/10 16.3
Source: European Agency for Health and Safety at Work. OSH in figures: Work
related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU – Facts and figures. Luxembourg 2010.
Statistics from the German Federal Bureau rank diseases according to which cause the
longest periods of inability to work. Back pain (Dorsalgia) ranks first before acute
respiratory infections and depression.
Table The diseases with the longest periods of inability to work Germany 2008
Disease Rank Days of inability to work
Dorsalgia 1 14,261,158
Acute respiratory infection
2 6,108,783
Depressive episode 3 3,711,674
Source: German Federal Bureau of Statistics 2011
Refers to Compulsory members of the Local Statutory Health Insurance (AOK)
without pensioners.
30 August Final Draft for review 151
In the UK in 2009/10, an estimated 9.25 million working days were lost through
work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
Figure Comparison of days lost due to work-related ill health and injury – UK 2009/10
Comparison of days lost due to work-related ill health and injury Labour Force Survey 2009/10 UK
Stress 34%
MSD33%
Injury 18%
Other15%
Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/injuryhealth.htm
Around three-quarters of days lost due to MSD were accounted for by conditions
mainly affecting the back and upper limbs or neck, with 3.5 million days and 3.7
million days respectively. The remaining 2.0 million days was attributed to disorders
of the lower limbs. The largest gender differential in the average days lost per case
was for disorders affecting the lower limbs; the average days lost in men for this
condition was 25.3 compared to 12.5 days for women. Women lost more days than
men due to MSC affecting upper limbs and neck.
30 August Final Draft for review 152
Figure Work loss due to MSC UK 2009-10 – number of days lost (1,000s) by
region and gender
Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/musculoskeletal/scale.htm
Looking at the average number of work days lost per case due to MSC in the UK the
gender differential was smaller than that when comparing number of lost days. This
was particularly true for MSC affecting the lower limbs.
Work loss due to MSC UK 2008-9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
mainlyaffecting
upper limbsor neck
mainlyaffecting thelower limbs
mainlyaffecting the
back
No. d
ays
lost
(1,0
00s)
Male Days lost (1,000s)
Female Days lost(1,000s)
30 August Final Draft for review 153
Figure Average work days lost per case due to MSC UK 2009-10 by region and
gender
Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/musculoskeletal/scale.htm
Costs arising from productivity loss are the most important contributors to the total
costs of illness of MSC, (using the human capital approach which includes the cost of
work disability). Comparison of the cost of work related musculoskeletal conditions is
difficult because of the difference in organisation of insurance systems, the lack of
standardised assessment criteria and differences in how costs are measured. In
Germany the estimated productivity loss due to musculoskeletal conditions in 2006
was 95 million days lost (23.7% of total days lost) at a cost of 23.9 billion euros or
1.1% of the GNP (SUGA 2006). In Finland for 2004 it was estimated that the direct
costs of work-related MSDs (for absences from work lasting more than nine days)
were in excess of 222m euros (SSI, 2004). In France figures from 2007 show that
nearly 7.5 million working days were lost due to temporary incapacity caused by
Work loss due to MSC UK 2008-9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
mainlyaffecting
upper limbsor neck
mainlyaffecting thelower limbs
mainlyaffecting the
back
Aver
age
days
per
cas
e
Male Average days lostper case Female Average dayslost per case
30 August Final Draft for review 154
work-related MSDs causing a cost to society of more than 736 million euros
(CNMATS 2008).
Musculoskeletal conditions and disability costs
Musculoskeletal conditions are a major cause of disability and as such they lead to
significant costs in terms of disability pensions and benefits.
.
• Austria 2001 - 35% of all new disability pensions in 2001 were due to MSCs
(Lang et al 2003)
• Spain - 18% of persons receiving disability pension in 2007 received pension
due to musculoskeletal conditions (Spain national statistics bureau 2011).
• Netherlands - 30% of all new allowances for work disability in 2010 were
granted for musculoskeletal diseases (including trauma). This is similar to new
allowances for mental health (Netherlands Statistical Bureau 2011)..
• Belgium -diseases of the ‘locomotor’ system were the primary cause of
invalidity among male workers (28 per cent); second most important, after
mental disorders, in female workers (27 per cent) in 2009 (Belgian National
Institute for Sickness and Invalidity Insurance).
• UK - Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a benefit for people who are so
disabled as to have personal care needs and/or mobility needs and who claim
before their 65th birthday. In 2010 38% of those claiming DLA were doing so
because of musculoskeletal conditions (Department of Work & Pensions).
A study by the OECD looked at the distribution of total benefit receipts by condition
and age for Luxembourg, Spain, and UK. It showed that in all three countries
musculoskeletal conditions contributed significantly, particularly in the 50-64 year
age group.
30 August Final Draft for review 155
Figure Percentage distribution of total benefit recipients, by age group, most
recent available year: 2004 for Luxembourg and Spain, 2006 for the United
Kingdom.
Musculoskeletal condition Mental health Other
Source: OECD. 2007. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers Vol. 2:
Australia, Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom 2007.
30 August Final Draft for review 156
In Finland in 2009 diseases of the musculoskeletal system was second only to mental
disorders as the principal diagnostic reason for receipt of a disability pension.
Figure Disability pensions by main diagnosis Finalnd 2009
Source: Finnish Centre for Pensions and The Social Insurance Institution of Finland.
Statistical Yearbook of Pensioners in Finland 2010. Statutory earning-related and/or
national pensions.
Data from England, Scotland and Wales on the duration of incapacity benefit claims
by condition shows that MSC are second only to mental health conditions in terms of
caseload and duration of claim.
Recipients of disability pensions top 6 main diagnosis Finland 2009
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Neoplasms Injuries & poisoning Diseases of circulatorysystem
Diseases of nervoussystem
Diseases ofmusculoskeletal
system
Mental disorders
Disease category
No. r
ecip
ient
s (1
,000
s)
30 August Final Draft for review 157
Figure Duration of incapacity benefit claim by condition England, Scotland &
Wales 2010
Source: Department of Work & Pensions. 2011. Analysis of Incapacity Benefits:
detailed medical conditions and duration.
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/ib_sda_esa_medical_durati
on_aug_2010.pdf
In a study by Hallert et al (2006) the direct and indirect costs of early rheumatoid
arthritis in Sweden was calculated. Costs were calculated for subjects of working age
(18–65 years), using the human capital approach, estimating the value of lost
production during the entire period of work absenteeism, assuming full productivity.
Indirect costs exceeded direct costs in all 3 years of the study period. The average
direct costs were 3704 Euro in year 1 and 2652 Euro in year 3. All costs decreased,
except those for medication and surgery. The indirect costs were 8871 Euro in year
one and remained largely unchanged. Almost 50% of study participants were on sick
Incapacity benefit caseload working age by duration of claim ES& W 2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Injury, Poisoning andcertain other
consequences ofexternal causes
Diseases of theCirculatory or
Respiratory System
Diseases of theNervous System
Diseases ofMusculoskeletal
system & connectivetissue
Mental &Behavioutal
disorders
Condition
Cas
eloa
d (1
,000
s)
6 mths to 1 yr1- 2 yrs2-5 yrs5 yrs+
30 August Final Draft for review 158
leave or early retirement at inclusion. Sick leave decreased but was offset by an
increase in early retirement.
30 August Final Draft for review 159
Health inequalities and musculoskeletal conditions
The Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH 2008) defined health
equity as: “the absence of unfair and avoidable or remediable differences in health
among population groups defined socially, economically, demographically or
geographically”
It is important to look at health inequities in the wider context of socioeconomic
differentials. There are significant socio-economic differentials between and within
EU countries. Life expectancy is an important measure of inequity. There is a 12 year
difference between the highest and the lowest life expectancy at birth for males in the
EU27. Lowest life expectancy for males is 66 years in Lithuania and the highest is 78
years in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Cyprus and The Netherlands. For women the lowest life
expectancy at birth is 77 years in Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania. The
highest is 84 years in Spain, France and Italy. The EU27 average is 76 years for males
and 82 years for females.
Figure Life expectancy at birth by sex 2008
Source: Eurostat 2011.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database
Life expectancy at birth by sex 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Lithua
nia
Latvia
Bulgari
a
Romania
Hunga
ry
Estonia
Slovakia
Poland
Czech
Rep
ublic
Denmark
Sloven
ia
Portug
alEU27
Belgium
Finland
Greece
United
King
domMalt
a
German
y
Irelan
d
Luxe
mbourg
Netherla
nds
Austria
Cypru
s
SwedenSpa
in
FranceIta
ly
Year
s MalesFemales
30 August Final Draft for review 160
The within-country differences in life expectancy can be substantial. Examining life
expectancy by education, men in Estonia with tertiary education have a life
expectancy 18.5 years longer than those with primary education. Primary educated
males in Estonia have a life expectancy of 57.5 years. For women the differential is
9.5 years with the life expectancy for primary educated women being 76.8 years. The
lowest educational differential in the 11 countries presented here is in Malta where
males with tertiary education live 3.2 years longer than males with primary education;
for women the differential between education groups is 1.7 years.
Figure Difference in life expectancy at birth between primary and tertiary
educated persons by sex, 2008.
Source: EUROSTAT 2011.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database
The Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) is an artificial currency unit that eliminates
price level differences between countries allowing for direct comparison. Gross
Domestic Product per capita in 2010 expressed in PPS varied from 43% to 283% of
Difference in life expectancy at birth between primary and tertiary educated persons by sex, 2008
02468
101214161820
Malta
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Romania
Slovenia
Poland
Hungary
Czech
Republic
Bulgaria
Estonia
Diffe
renc
e in
yea
rs
MalesFemales
30 August Final Draft for review 161
the EU27 average across the Member States. The highest recorded level of GDP per
capita was in Luxembourg (283). Romania (45) and Bulgaria (43) were approximately
55% below the EU27 average.
Figure GDP per capita in PPS 2010
Source: Eurostat news release 21 June 2011.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-21062011-AP/EN/2-
21062011-AP-EN.PDF
The Gini Coefficient is the most commonly used measure of income inequality. The
coefficient varies between 0, which reflects complete equality and 100, which
indicates complete inequality (one person has all the income or consumption, all
others have none). The 2009 average for the EU27 countries was 30.6. The data
indicates that Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia and Sweden have the most equal income
distribution, the most unequal is found in Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania.
GDP per capita (in PPS) 2010
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Bulgaria
RomaniaLatv
ia
Lithuan
ia
Poland
Hungary
Estonia
Slovakia
Czech
Republic
Portugal
Malta
Slovenia
GreeceCyprus
ItalyEU27
Spain
France UK
Finland
Belgium
Geman
y
SwedenAustria
Denmark
Irelan
d
Netherlan
ds
Luxembourg
PPS
30 August Final Draft for review 162
Figure Gini co-efficient EU27 2009
Source: EUROSTAT EU-SILC 2011:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_co
nditions/data/database
The Relative Index of Inequality (RII) is the ratio between the rate of self-assessed
health in the lowest educational group and the rate of self-assessed health in the
highest educational group. In the EU the RII is higher than 1 in all selected countries,
for both men and women, indicating that self-assessed health is always worse in the
lowest as compared to the highest educational group (Eurothine 2007).
Health care inequalities
Inequalities in health care can arise from a number of factors:
• Beliefs and health seeking behaviour
Gini co-efficient 2009
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Slovenia
Hungary
Slovakia
Sweden
Czech
Repub
lic
Austria
Finland
Belgium
Denmark
Netherlan
dsMalt
a
Cyprus
Irelan
d
German
y
Luxembourg
FranceEU27
Estonia
Poland ItalySpain UK
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Portugal
Lithuan
iaLatv
ia
Gin
i co-
effic
ient
30 August Final Draft for review 163
Health beliefs, perceptions of need and previous health care experiences affect
health seeking behaviour and how people utilise health care services. For example
people may consider that joint pain is a natural part of ageing and believe that it
cannot be treated. In a UK survey of 1,400 people with a confirmed diagnosis of
RA (National Audit Office 2009) one third of people who were finally diagnosed
with RA delayed going to their GP for 6 months or more after their symptoms
appeared. The attitudes and beliefs of healthcare providers can also act as a barrier
to care (Van Ryn & Fu 2003).
• Financial barriers
The cost of health care itself (for example the need to make co-payments) or costs
associated with accessing health care (for example transport costs or those
associated with missed work or childcare) can act as a barrier to accessing health
care.
• Organisational barriers
These include barriers such as referral patterns and waiting times. In the UK
National Audit survey one third of respondents waited 6 months or more to obtain
a referral to a specialist and nearly one quarter of respondents had to wait over a
year for effective treatment and care. (National Audit Office 2009).
MSC and socioeconomic status
Individuals with lower socioeconomic status have:
• Higher prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal complaints (Hagen, 2005)
• Higher prevalence of osteoarthritis (Hannan 1992, Hawker 2002)
• More severe disease and worse disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis
(ERAS Study Group 2000, Harrison 2005)
• Studies in the US, Canada and the UK have found relationships between total
joint arthroplasty (TJA) and socioeconomic status. Patients with lower income
30 August Final Draft for review 164
have TJA less frequently than those with higher socioeconomic status
(Rahman et al 2011).
• A UK study showed that residents in the most deprived areas got less
provision relative to need for total hip replacement and total knee replacement
than those in the least deprived areas (Judge et al 2010).
• In England it was found that a socioeconomic gradient of 25.9% difference
existed for in-hospital hip fracture mortality in 2008 (Wu et al 2011).
Education has an important influence on health. The mechanism is unknown but it is
thought that education may influence health outcomes by providing the trigger for
healthier lifestyles and behaviour and providing access to employment opportunities
and other chances that can protect individuals from disadvantage later in life
(Acheson 1998, HSE 2002). Studies show that there is an association between level of
education and the likelihood of having a musculoskeletal condition.
A study by Dalstra et al (2005) examined the socioeconomic differences in the
prevalence of common chronic disease in 8 European countries using data from health
surveys. The study calculated the odds ratios for the prevalence of disease comparing
lower education with higher education level. With the exception of back and spine
disorder in England the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions was higher in those
with low education levels than those with high education levels. The table below
show odds ratios for the prevalence of MSC in adults aged 25-79 by education.
Table Odds ratios for prevalence of MSC by education differences (low vs. high
education), adults aged 25-79
Condition Denmark England Netherlands Belgium France
Arthritis 1.73 1.48 1.44
Osteoporosis 1.61 1.54 1.43
Back & spine
disorder
1.16 0.90 1.17 1.53 1.09
Source: Dalstra et al 2005.
30 August Final Draft for review 165
The Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
(QUEST–RA) study included clinical and questionnaire data from 6004 patients who
were seen in usual care at 70 rheumatology clinics in 25 countries as of April 2008.
These included 18 European countries. Demographic variables, clinical characteristics,
RA disease activity measures, including the disease activity score in 28 joints
(DAS28), and treatment-related variables were analysed according to GDP per capita.
It included 14 “high GDP” countries with GDP per capita greater than US$24 000 and
11 “low GDP” countries with GDP per capita less than US$11 000. Disease activity
DAS28 ranged between 3.1 and 6.0 among the 25 countries and was significantly
associated with GDP. Patients who were taking or not taking biological agents in
‘‘high GDP’’ countries had similar disease activity levels of 3.7, whereas in ‘‘low
GDP’’ countries those who were taking biological agents had a statistically
significantly lower mean DAS28 of 4.4 compared with patients who were not taking
biological agents. Disease activity levels differed substantially between “high GDP”
and “low GDP” countries at much greater levels than according to whether patients
were currently taking or not taking methotrexate, prednisone and/or biological agents.
The study concluded that the burden of arthritis appears substantially greater in “low
GDP” than in “high GDP” countries.
Figure The burden of rheumatoid arthritis (DAS28) by GDP
Source: Sokka T et al. 2009.
30 August Final Draft for review 166
Age and gender
As we saw earlier age is a risk factor for musculoskeletal problems. A UK study of
the provision of total hip replacement and total knee replacement showed that
compared with people aged 50-59, those aged 60-84 got more provision relative to
need, while those aged ≥85 received less total hip replacement and less total knee
replacement (Judge 2010). In certain occupation groups young age is associated with
increased risk of musculoskeletal conditions- this could be a result of young people
being engaged in more physically demanding activities or due to older workers
leaving these occupations due to the physical demands.
In relation to gender, studies have shown that women have a higher prevalence of OA,
a lower rate of total joint arthroplasty and a greater unmet need for TJA than men
(Borkhoff et al 2011). A US study indicated that women are operated on for TJA at a
more advanced stage in the course of their disease than men (Katz 1994). A study
from the UK also showed that men received more provision relative to need for total
hip replacement and total knee replacement than women (Judge 2010). In a study by
Hawker et al. (2000) women were more than 3 times less likely to undergo
arthroplasty than men despite reporting equal willingness to have the procedure.
Ethnicity
There is little data or literature available on ethnicity and MSC health inequalities in
Europe. A UK study showed that for total knee replacement, patients living in non-
white areas received more provision relative to need than those in predominantly
white areas (Judge et al 2010). In a US study older American Hispanics were more
likely to report having arthritis and reported having a higher prevalence of limitations
in activities of daily living than non-Hispanic whites (Dunlop et al 2001).
Equity of access to MSC treatments across the EU
A report by Kobelt and Kasteng (2009) examined the uptake of biologic treatments
across the EU. The study faced a number of methodological challenges including
30 August Final Draft for review 167
those due to the absence of comparable data across the Member states and the lack of
information on the proportion of drugs used for RA rather than other indications.
Therefore the results must be interpreted with caution. The results suggest that there
are large differences in the proportion of patients with RA who are treated with
biologics across EU Member States. The wealthier countries in the EU tend to have a
higher proportion of patients treated with biologics. The authors conclude that
differences between countries with similar economic conditions are due to a number
of factors including reimbursement schemes, treatment guidelines, access to
specialists and relative costs (Kobelt 2009). The QUEST-RA study also showed a
large variation in the percentage of patients who had ever taken biologicals form a
high of 54% in Greece to a low of 1% in Estonia. This was not related to GDP.
Table GDP and % patients ever taken biologicals 2008
Source: Sokka et al 2009.
Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) were taken by 92–100% of all
patients in the 16 EU countries included in the study, with no differences between
GDP and % patients ever taken biologicals 2008
0
10
2030
40
50
60
Irelan
d
Denmark
Sweden
Netherl
andsFinlan
d UK
France
German
y ItalySpain
Greece
Hungary
Estonia
Poland
Lithuan
iaLatv
ia
GDP 2005
% Biologicalsever
30 August Final Draft for review 168
‘‘high GDP’’ and ‘‘low GDP’’ countries; the mean number of DMARD was 2.7. The
median delay between first symptoms and initiation of the first DMARD ranged
widely but with no statistically significant difference between “high GDP” and “low
GDP” countries (Sokka 2009). DMARD were taken for less than 50% of disease
duration in the UK, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and for more than 100% in
Finland and Greece (percentages greater than 100 indicate the simultaneous use of
two or more DMARD).
Figure Delay between first symptoms and initiation of first DMARD by GDP
Source: Sokka et al 2009.
Regional inequalities in access to MSC health care
In many countries across Europe studies have identified significant regional
differences in access to health care services and care (Lopez-Casanovas et al 2005,
Salmela 1993). There are very few studies looking at these differences in relation to
musculoskeletal conditions. The 2010 study by Judge et al showed that there were
substantial regional differences in access to total hip replacement and total knee
Median delay between first symptoms and initiation of first DMARD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Irelan
d
Denmark
Sweden
Netherla
nds
Finland UK
France
German
yIta
lySpain
Greece
Hungary
Estonia
Poland
Lithuan
iaLatvi
a
Med
ian
dela
y (m
onth
s)
GDPDMARD delay
30 August Final Draft for review 169
replacement in England. The maps show that a district with a high rate of equity
(dark green) is providing more operations for people in need than a district with a low
rate of equity (light green). On average, a district in the bottom fifth would have to
perform an additional 24 hip replacement operations per 1000 people in need
(13/1000 for knee replacement) to move from the bottom to middle fifth. For hip and
knee replacement the level of equity is worse for people living in the north, the West
Midlands, and London. Except for London, people in need of surgery living in the
south of England were more likely to get an operation than in other areas of the
country.
Figure Regional access to total hip & total knee replacement in England
Map of equity to access to THR across 354 districts in England
30 August Final Draft for review 170
Map of equity to access to TKR across 354 districts in England
Source: Judge et al 2010.
Data from Sweden (http://english.skl.se/) shows that despite an even distribution of
the occurrence of RA over the country before the launch of national guidelines in
2011 there were significant health inequalities between different regions in the access
to biologic therapy for RA.
30 August Final Draft for review 171
Figure Number of patients with biological medicines for rheumatoid arthritis
per 100,000 people by region, Sweden 2008.
Source: Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. Contributed by MORSE, Sweden
30 August Final Draft for review 172
Conclusion This report has sought to describe the health, social, employment and economic
impacts of musculoskeletal conditions across EU Member States. In doing so it has
drawn on information and data from a wide range of sources. In compiling this report
the lack of up to date comprehensive data which is comparable across all Member
States is apparent. This is particularly the case for incidence and prevalence data from
Central, Eastern European and Mediterranean countries. This highlights the need for
improved sources of routine data on these common but high impact conditions.
Changes in the lifestyles of Europeans including increasing obesity and inactivity are
putting populations at high risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions. This
together with Europe’s ageing population suggests that without action the burden of
these conditions will increase. At present musculoskeletal diseases are a leading cause
of burden of disease in the EU as measured by Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYS) and Years Lived with Disability (YLDs). Central and Eastern European
countries show a relatively high burden of musculoskeletal disease including
rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. These countries also have the lowest GDP per
capita in the EU27. This is compatible with the evidence that there is a correlation
between osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and socioeconomic conditions.
Musculoskeletal conditions are a major cause of productivity loss. There are very few
comparative studies of sickness absence in Europe and there is an urgent need for
indicators which can be used across the EU27 to capture the occurrence, duration and
cause of sickness absence. MSC are a major cause of prolonged sickness absence and
as a major cause of disability and as such they lead to significant costs in terms of
disability pensions and benefits.
Musculoskeletal conditions can profoundly affect many aspects of the life of the
individual, including physical and mental well-being, economic well being and
physical and emotional relationships. They impact on the life not only of the
individual but also of carers, family and friends. Taking in account not only the level
of impairment but also the prevalence of disease Rheumatic diseases are among the
30 August Final Draft for review 173
diseases that produce the largest impairment in Health Related Quality of Life
(HRQoL) and daily functioning and, as a group, may be considered on a par with
major diseases such as neurological, cardiac, or pulmonary diseases.
Across the EU there are significant differentials in the burden of disease by age,
gender, education and occupation. National and regional inequalities in access to
health care services and resources have also been identified. Of particular concern is
the evidence which suggests that disease activity levels differ substantially according
to whether countries are classified as having a high or low GDP.
Everyone is at risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions, but to reduce the
enormous impact on the quality of life of individuals and socio-economic impact on
society related to musculoskeletal conditions, people at all ages should be encouraged
to follow a bone and joint healthy lifestyle and to avoid the specific risks related to
musculoskeletal health.
30 August Final Draft for review 174
References Abrahamsen B, Vestergaard P. 2010. Declining incidence of hip fractures and the
extent of use of anti-osteoporotic therapy in Denmark 1997–2006. Osteoporos Int
21:373–380.
Acheson D. 1998. The Independent Inquiry into Health Inequalities in Health Report.
London:Stationary Office.
Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ et al. 2010. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1580-1588.
Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D. et al. 1986. Development of criteria for the classification
and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis
Rheum 29:1039-49.
Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, Ware Jr. JE et al. 2004. Health-related quality of life
associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: Results from the International
Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Quality of Life Research 13:283-298.
Anandacoomarasamy A, Caterson I, Sambrook P et al. 2008. The impact of obesity
on the musculoskeletal system. International Journal of Obesity 32(2):211-22.
Anderson P. Baumberg B. 2006. Alcohol in Europe: a public health perspective.
London: Institute of Alcohol Studies.
Annemans l, Spaepen E, Gaskin M. et al . 2008. Gout in the UK and Germany. Ann
Rheum Dis 67:960-966
Arnett FC et al. 1988. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria
for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:315-324.
30 August Final Draft for review 175
Arromdee et al. 2002. Epidemiology of gout: is the incidence rising? J Rheumatol.
29(11):2403-2406.
Arthritis Care 2010. Arthritis Hurts – The Hidden Pain of Arthritis.
http://www.arthritiscare.org.uk/AboutUs/copy_of_ArthritisHurts
ASPECT Consortium. 2004. Tobacco or Health in the European Union, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Bernatsky S, Rosenberg AM, Oen KG, Duffy CM, Ramsey-Goldman R, Labrecque J,
St Pierre Y, Clarke AE. Malignancies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a preliminary
report. J Rheumatol 2011;38:760-3.
Beukelman et al. Arthritis Rheum 2010:62(Suppl);S100.
BJD. 2005. European action Towards Better Musculoskeletal Health.
www.boneandjointdecade.org/ViewDocument.aspx?Contld=534.
Blake DJ et al. 1987. Sexual quality of life of patients with arthritis compared
toarthritis free controls. Journal of Rheumatology 14 (3):570-576.
Bliuc D, Nguyen D, Mich VE et al. 2009. Mortality Risk Associated With Low-
Trauma Osteoporotic Fracture and Subsequent Fracture in Men and Women. JAMA.
301(5):513-521.
Bongers P M. de Vet H C W. Blatter B M. 2002. Repetitive strain injury: occurrence,
etiology, therapy and prevention. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde
146(42):1971-6
Borkhoff CM, Hawker GA. 2011. Wright JG. Patient gender affects the referral and
recommendation for total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 469(7):1829-37.
30 August Final Draft for review 176
Bot SDM, van de Waal JM, Terwee CB et al. 2005. Incidence and prevalence of
complaints of the neck and upper extremity in general practice. Ann Rheum Dis
64:118-123.
Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, van de Berg B et al. 2004. Burden of caregiving: evidence
of objective burden. Arthritis & Rheumatism 51 (4): 570-577.
Burton W, Morrison A, Maclean R, Ruderman E. 2005. Systematic review of studies
of productivity loss due to rheumatoid arthritis. Occupational Medicine 56:18-27.
Busse R, Schreyogg J, Smith PC. 2008. Variability in healthcare treatment costs
amongst nine EU countries – results from the Health basket project. Health Econ
17:51-58.
Carbonell J, Cobo T, Balsa A, Descalzo MA, Carmona L. 2008. The incidence of
rheumatoid arthritis in Spain: results from a nationwide primary care registry.
Rheumatology. 47(7):1088-92.
Carmona L, Cross M, Williams B, Lassere M, March L. 2010. Rheumatoid arthritis.
Best Practice Res Clin Rheumatol 24:733–745.
Chorus AMJ, Miedema HS, Boonen A, van der Linden SJ. 2003. Quality of life and
work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis of working age.
Ann Rheum Dis 62:1178-1184
Cimmino HA, Salaffi F. 2007. The fate of the patient with musculoskeletal disorders
in Italy. Clinical & Experimental Rheumatology 25:803-805.
CNAMTS 2009. Dénombrement des maladies professionelles déclarées et reconnues par le régime général de 2004 à 2007. Retrieved on 29 April 2009 from http://www.risquesprofessionnels.ameli.fr/atmp_media/2009-MALADIES_ PROFESSIONNELLES_DECLAREES_ET_RECONNUES_2004-2007.pdf cited in Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the French Labour Market http://www.fitforworkeurope.eu/ffw_french_report.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 177
Cooper C, Cole, ZA, Holroyd CR et al. 2011. Secular trends in the incidence of hip
and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis International. 22(5):1277-1288.
CSDH 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity trough action on the social
determinants of health. Final report of the CSDH.
Cullinan J, Gannon B, Lyons S. 2010. Estimating the extra cost of living for people
with disabilities. Health Economic. www.interscience.wiley.com
doi:10.1002/hec.1619 PMID:20535832
Dadoniene J, Uhlig T, Stropuviene S et al. 2003. Disease activity and health status in
rheumatoid arthritis: a case-control comparison between Norway and Lithuania. Ann
Rheum Dis 62:231–235
Dalstra JAA, Kunst AE, Borrell E et al. 2005. Socioeconomic differences in the
prevalence of common chronic disease: an overview of eight European countries.
International Journal of Epidemiology 34:316-326
Davis MA, Ettinger WH, Neuhaus JM. 1990. Obesity and osteoarthritis of the
knee:evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES I). Semin Arthritis Rheum 20:34–41S.
Dickens C, Jackson J, Tomenson B et al. 2003. Association of depression and
rheumatoid arthritis. Psychosomatics 44:209-215.
Dunlop DD, Manheim LM, Song J, Chang R. 2001.Arthritis prevelence and activity
limitations in older adults. Arthritis & Rheumatism 44(1): 212-221.
ERAS Study Group. 2000. Socioeconomic deprivation and rheumatoid disease: What
lessons for the health service? Ann Rheum Dis 59(10):794-799,
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 2010. OSH in figures: Work-related
musculoskeletal disorders in the EU – Facts and figures. Luxembourg 2010.
30 August Final Draft for review 178
European Commission. 2007. Health in the European Union. Special Eurobarometer
272. 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_publication/eb_health_en.pdf
European Commission. 2010. Sport and Physical Activity. Special Eurobarometer 334.
2010. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_334_en.pdf
Eurosafe. 2006.
http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l2sportssafety.htm
Eurosafe 2011
http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l2vulnerableroadu
sers-vulnerabel2.htm
Eurostat 2009. Statistics in Focus 63/2009.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-063/EN/KS-SF-09-
063-EN.PDF
Eurothine. 2007. Tackling Health Inequalities in Europe: An Integrated Approach. Erasmus MC, The Netherlands. (http://survey.erasmusmc.nl/eurothine/uploads/eurothine_final_report_complete.zip).
Finckh A, Dehler S, Costenbader KH, Gabay C, on behalf of the Swiss Clinical
Quality Management project for RA (SCQM). 2007. Cigarette smoking and
radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 66(8): 1066–1071.
Fries J, Spitz PW, Young DY. 1982. The dimensions of health outcomes: the health
assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 9:789–93.
http://aramis.stanford.edu/HAQ.html
Gabriel SE, Michaud K.2009. Epidemiological studies in incidence, prevalence,
mortality, and comorbidity of the rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 11(3):229.
30 August Final Draft for review 179
Gettings L. 2010. Psychological well-being in rheumatoid arthritis: a review of the
literature. Musculoskelet. Care. Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/msc.171.
GBD 2010. Global Burden of Disease Study. http://www.globalburden.org/index.html.
Griffin MR. 1998. Epidemiology of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated
gastrointestinal injury. Am J Med 104:23–9S.
Hagen K. et al. 2005. Low socioeconomic status is associated with chronic
musculoskeletal complaints among 46, 901 adults in Norway.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 33:268-275.
Hallert et al. 2006. Costs and course of disease and function in early rheumatoid
arthritis: a 3-year follow-up (the Swedish TIRA project). Rheumatology 45:325–331.
Hannan MT, Anderson JJ, Pincus T, et al 1992. Educational attainment and
osteoarthritis: differential associations with radiographic changes and symptom
reporting. 1992. J Clin Epidemiol, 45(2):139‐147.
Harrison MJ, Tricker KJ, Davies L et al. 2005. The relationship between social
deprivation, disease outcome measures, and response to treatment in patients with stable,
long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32(12):2330-2336.
Hashkes PJ, Wright BM, Lauer MS et al. 2010. Mortality outcomes in pediatric
rheumatology in the US. Arthritis Rheum 62:599-608.
Hawker GA,Wright JG, Coyte PG et al. 2000. Differences between men and women
in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty. New Engl Jnl Med 6;342(14):1016-22.
Hawker GA, Wright JG, Glazier RH et al. 2002. The effect of education and income
on need and willingness to undergo total joint arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum
46(12):3331-3339.
30 August Final Draft for review 180
Heijink R., Noethan M., Renaud T. et al. 2008. Cost of illness: an international
comparison Australia, Canada, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Health Policy
88:49-61.
Hill J et al. 2002. The effects of rheumatoid arthritis on sexual relationships.
Rheumatology 41, abstract supplement 1 (203): 83.
Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS. et al. 2008. Rheumatology 4th edition. Elsevier
Ltd. St Louis.
Hoy D et al. 2010. Low back Pain. Best Practice Res Clin Rheumatol.
HSE (Health & Safety Executive. 2002. Work inequality and musculoskeletal health.
Contract Research Report 421. University of Surrey.
Hui M, Doherty M, Zhang W. 2011. Does smoking protect against osteoarthritis?
Meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Rheum Dis Published Online First: 7
April 2011.
Hulshof KF, Brussaard JH, Kruizinga AG, Telman J, Löwik MR. 2003. Socio-
economic status, dietary intake and 10 y trends: the Dutch National Food
Consumption Survey. Eur J Clin Nutr. Jan;57(1):128-37.
IOF (International Osteoporosis Foundation) 2008. Osteoporosis in the European
Union in 2008. www.iofbonehealth.org
Ismail et al 2002. Incidence of limb fracture across Europe: results from the European
Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Osteoporos Int. 3(7):565-71.
Isaia G, Giorgino R, Rini GB et al. 2003. Prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in elderly
women in Italy: clinical consequences and risk factors. Osteoporos Int. 14:577-582.
30 August Final Draft for review 181
Jacobi CE, Triemsta M Rupp I et al. 2001. Health care utilization among rheumatoid
arthritis patients referred to a rheumatology center: unequal needs. Arthritis Rheum
45(4):324-30.
Johnson RJ, Kang DH, Feig D, et al. 2003. Is there a pathogenetic
role for uric acid in hypertension and cardiovascular and renal
disease? Hypertension. 41(6):1183-90.
Jonsson B, Kobel G, Smolen J. 2008. The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to
treatment: uptake of new therapies. Eur J Health Econ. 8:S61-S86.
Jordan KP, Kadam UT, Hayward R et al. 2010. Annual consultation prevalence of
regional musculoskeletal problems in primary care: an observational study. BMC
Musculoskelet Disord. 11: 144.
Judge A, Welton NJ, Sandhu J et al. 2010. Equity in access to total joint replacement
of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study. BMJ. 11(341):c4092.
Jzelenberg W, Molenaar A, Burdorf D. 2004. Different risk factors for
musculoskeletal complaints and musculoskeletal sickness absence. Scand J Work
Environ Health. 30:56–63.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C. 2002 International Variations in Hip Fracture
Probabilities: Implications for Risk Assessment. Journal of Bone and Mineral
Research 17(7):1237-1244.
Kanis JA, Johnell O. 2005. Requirements for DXA for the management of
osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporosis Int 16:229-238.
Katz JN, Wright EA, Guadagnoli E et al. 1994. Differences between men and women
undergoing major orthopedic surgery for degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum
37:867-94.
30 August Final Draft for review 182
Katz PP, Yelin EH. 2001. Activity loss and the onset of depressive symptoms.
Arthritis and Rheumatism 44:1194-1202.
Keene GS, Parker MJ, Pryor GA. 1993. Mortality and morbidity after hip fracture.
BMJ 307:1248-1250.
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS.1958. Osteo-arthrosis and disk degeneration in an urban
population. Ann Rheum Dis. 17 : 388 – 97.
Kobelt G, Kasteng F. 2009. Access to innnovtaive treatments in rheumatoid arthritis
in Europe. A report prepared for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry
Associations (EFPIA).
Kroneman MW, Maarse M, Van der Zee J. 2006. Direct access in primary care and
patient satisfaction: A European study. Health Policy 76:72-79.
Lambrelli D, O’Donnell O. 2009. Why does the utilisation of pharmaceuticals vary so
much across Europe? Evidence from micro-data on older Europeans. HEDG Working
Paper 09/06. University of York.
Lang G, Reischl B, Hauser C, Martinetz L, Reiterer B, Rössler B. Impact of Changing
Social Structures on Stress and Quality of Life: Individual and Social perspectives.
Review and Inventory of National Systems and Policy: Austria, Vienna,
Forschungsinstitut des Wiener Roten Kreuzes (FRK), 2003. Available in English
at:http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Psychology/stressimpact/publications/wp2/wp2_reportAus
tria.pdf
Leifman H. 2002. Trends in population drinking. In: Norström T, editor. Alcohol in
postwar Europe: Consumption, drinking patterns, consequences and policy responses
in 15 European countries. Stockholm: National Institute of Public Health.
30 August Final Draft for review 183
Lempp H, Ibrahim F, Shaw T et al. 2011. Comparative quality of life in patients with
depression and rheumatoid arthritis. International Review of Psychiatry. 23(1):118-
124.
Lips P, Duong T, Oleksik A et al. 2001. A global study of vitamin D status and
parathyroid function in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: baseline data from
the multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation clinical trial [published correction
appears in J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 86:3008]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
2001;86:1212-1221.
Lopez-Casasnovas G, Costa-Font J, Planas I. 2005. Diversity and regional inequalities
in the Spanish system of health care. Health Economics 14(S1): S221-235.
Loza E, et al. 2008. Burden of Disease across Chronic Diseases: A Health Survey
That Measured Prevalence, Function, and Quality of Life. J Rheumatol. 35(1):159-65
Lu B. Solomon D. Costenbader KH. et al. 2010. Alcohol consumption and markers of
inflammation in women with preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism.
62 (12): 3554-3559
Lund T, Christensen KB, Vaez M et al. 2008. Differences in sickness absence in
Sweden and Denmark: the cross national HAKNAK study. European Journal of
Public Health 19(3) 343-349.
Lund T, Labriola M, Villadsen E. 2007. Who is at risk for long-term sickness
absence? A prospective cohort study of Danish employees. Work 28:225-230.
Lundvist, J, Kastang F, Kobelt G. 2008. The burden of RA and access to treatment:
health burden and costs. Eur J Health Econ 8(suppl 2): S49-S60.
Mazina D, Paulus D, Mairiaux, Ph. ‘Chronic low back pain, Part III Chronic low back
pain and occupational health in Belgium’, KCE reports vol. 48, Federaal
30 August Final Draft for review 184
Kenniscentrum voor gezondheidszorg 2006. Available in English at:
http://kce.fgov.be/index_nl.aspx?ID=0&SGREF=5260&CREF=8650
Matheson LE, Harcourt D, Hewlett S. 2009. Partners’ experiences of living with
rheumatoid arthritis: ‘Your whole life, your whole world, it changes’. Rheumatology
48:il60.
Macfarlane GJ, Pye SR, Finn JD, et al. ; European Male Ageing Study Group. 2009.
Investigating the determinants of international differences in the prevalence of chronic
widespread pain: evidence from the European Male Ageing Study. Ann Rheum Dis.
May;68(5):690-5. Epub 2008 Jul 24.
McBeth J, Jones K.2007. Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract
Res Clin Rheumatol. Jun;21(3):403-25. Review.
McBeth J, Pye SR, O’Neill TW et al. 2010. Musculoskeletal pain is associated with very low levels of vitamin D in men: results from the European Male Ageing Study. Ann Rheum Dis 69(8):1448-52.
McKenna MJ. 1992. Differences in vitamin D status between countries in young adults and the elderly. Am J Med. 93:69-77.
Merx H, Dreinhofer K, Schrader P et al. 2003. International variation in hip
replacement rates. Ann Rheum Dis 62:222-226.
Mikuls TR, Farrar JT, Bilker WB et al. 2005. Gout epidemiology: results from the UK General Practice Research Database, 1990–1999. Ann Rheum Dis 64:267–72.
Molarius A. 2003. The contribution of lifestyle factors to socioeconomic differences
in obesity in men and women--a population-based study in Sweden. Eur J Epidemiol.
2003;18(3):227-34.
Murray CJ, Lopez AD. 1996. The Global Burden of Disease: a comprehensive
assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990
30 August Final Draft for review 185
and projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA,Harvard School of Public Health, (Global
Burden of Disease and Injury Series, vol. I).
National Audit Office. 2009. Services for People with Rheumatoid Arthritis. NAO
London.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/services_for_people_with_rheum.aspx
Natvig, B., Bruusgaard, D., & Eriksen,W. 2001. Localized low back pain and low
back pain as part of widespread musculoskeletal pain: Two different disorders? A
cross sectional population study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33(1), 21–25.
NICE. Rheumatoid Arthritis. The Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults.
Clinical Guideline 79. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
2009.
Nolte E, Newbould J, Conklin A. 2010. International variation in the usage of
medicines. Rand & London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Technical
Report .
OECD. 2007. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers Vol. 2: Australia,
Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom 2007.
OECD 2009 Health at a Glance; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
OECD. 2009(i). Sickness, Disability and Work: Keeping on Track in the Economic
Downturn. Background Paper May 14-15 2009, Stockholm.
OECD 2010. Health at a Glance: Europe 2010; OECD Publishing.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/reports/docs/health_glance_en.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 186
Oliveria SA, Felson DT, Reed JI et al. 1995. Incidence of symptomatic hand, hip, and
knee osteoarthritis among patients in a health maintenance organization. Arthritis
Rheum.38(8):1134-41.
Olofsson et al. 2010. Decrease in sick leave among patients with rheumatoid arthritis
in the fi rst 12 months after start of treatment with tumour necrosis factor
antagonists:a population-based controlled cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 69:2131-2136.
Pal BR, Marshall T, James C et al. 2003. Distribution analysis of vitamin D highlights
differences in population subgroups: preliminary observations from a pilot study in
UK adults. J Endocrinol. 2003;179:119-129.
Ouppatham S, Bancha S, Choovichian P. The relationship of
hyperuricemia and blood pressure in the Thai army population. J Postgrad Med. 2008
Oct-Dec;54(4):259-62.
Pedersen JK, Kjaer NK, Svendsen AJ, Horslev-Petersen K. 2009. Incidence of
rheumatoid arthritis from 1995 to 2001: impact of ascertainment from multiple
sources. Rheumatol Int. 29(4):411-5.
Petridou E, Kyllekidis S, Jeffrey S. et al 2007. Unintentional injury mortality in the
European Union: How many more lives could be saved? Scand J Public 35(3):278-87.
Health.
Petridou E, Dikalioti S, Dessypris N. et al. 2008. The Evolution of Unintentional
Injury Mortality among Elderly in Europe. Journal of Aging and Health. 20(2):159-82.
Petersson I, Jacobsson T. 2002. Osteoarthritis of the peripheral joints. Best Pract Res
Clin Rheumatol 16:741-60.
Petty RE, Southwood TR, Manners P, et al. International League of Associations for
Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: second revision,
Edmonton, 2001. J Rheumatol 2004;31:390-2.
30 August Final Draft for review 187
Picavet HS, Shouten JS. 2003. Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences,
consequences and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain. 102(1-2):167-78
Polder J, Meerding WJ, Bonneux L, van der Maas P. 2005. Eur J Health Econom
50:223-232.
Porter, S.E., & Hanley, E.N. 2001. The musculoskeletal effects of smoking. Journal
of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 9:9-17.
Rahman MM, Kopec JA, Sayre E et al. 2011. Effect of sociodemographic factors on
surgical consultations and hip or knee replacements among patients with osteoarthritis
in British Colombia, Canada. The Journal of Rheumatology. 2011;38:3.
Rebenda V, Manette C, Lemmens R. et al. 2007. Prevalence and impact of
osteoarthritis and osteoporosis on health-related quality of life among active subjects.
Aging Clin Exp Res. 19(1):55-60.
Riedel AA, Nelson M, Wallace K, et al. 2004. Prevalence of comorbid conditions and
prescription medication use among patients with gout and hyperuricemia in a
managed care setting. J Clin Rheumatol. 10(6):308-14.
RCP. 2006. Annual Prevalence Report. Royal College of Physicians. Birmingham
Research Unit. UK.
Salmela R. 1993. Regional inequalities in health and health care in Finland and
Norway. Health Policy 24(1):83-94.
Schneider S, Mohnen SM, Schiltenwolf M, Rau C. 2007. Comorbidity of low back
pain: representative outcomes of a national health study in the Federal Republic of
Germany. Eur J Pain. 2007 May;11(4):387-97.
30 August Final Draft for review 188
Schoels M, Wong J, Scott DL. 2010. Economic aspects of treatment options in
rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR
recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum
Dis;69:995-1003.
Scott DL, Smith C, Kingsley G. 2005. What are the consequences of early rheumatoid
arthritis for the individual? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 19:117-36.
Sethi D, Racioppi F, Baumgarten I et al. 2006. Injuries and violence in Europe. Why
they matter and what can be done. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe.
www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/98762/E88037.pdf
Shiri R., Karppinen J, Leino-Arjas P. et al. 2010. The association between obesity and
low back pain : a meta-analysis. Am J. Epidemiol 15, 171(2):135-54.
SII (2007). Statistical Year Book of the Social Insurance Institution 2006. Helsinki,
Social Insurance Institution
(http://www.kela.fi/it/kelasto/kelasto.nsf/alias/Vk_06_pdf/$File/Vk_06.pdf?OpenEle
ment)
Simard JF, Neovius M, Hagelberg S, Askling J. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis and risk
of cancer: a nationwide cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:3776-82.
Simpson C, Franks C, Morrison C et al. 2005. The patient’s journey: rheumatoid
arthritis. BMJ 331:887-9.
Skelton D, Todd C. 2004. What are the main risk factors for falls amongst older
people and what are the most effective interventions to prevent these falls? How
should interventions to prevent falls be implemented? Copenhagen, World Health
Organization, Europe.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/74700/E82552.pdf
30 August Final Draft for review 189
Sokka T et al. 2009. Disparities in rheumatoid arthritis disease activity according to
gross domestic product in 25 countries in the QUEST-RA database. Ann Rheum Dis
2009:68:1666-1672
Sokka T et al 2010. Work disability remains a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis
in the 2000s: data from 32 countries in the QUEST-RA Study. Arthritis Research &
Therapy 12:R42.
Sprangers MAG, deRegt EB, Andries F et al. 2000. Which chronic conditions are
associated with better or poorer quality of life? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
53:895-907.
Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E. 2003. Lost productive time and cost due to common
pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA 290(18) 2443-2454.
Ström O, Borgström F, Kanis J et al. 2011. Osteoporosis: burden, health care
provision and opportunities in the EU. Arch Osteoporos. DOI 10.1007/s11657-011-
0060-1
SUGA 2006. Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei der Arbeit 2006, Bundesministeium fur
Arbeit und Soziales.
Tamulaitienė M, Alekna V, Strazdienė A. et al. 2010. The incidence of hip fractures
in Vilnius in 2006. Gerontologica 11(1):7-13.
http://www.gerontologija.lt/test/en/index.php?content_id=11&leidinys=42&straipsnis
=228&show=straipsnis&detail=true
Tsiros MD, Coates AM, Howe PR et al. 2011. Obesity: the new childhood disability?
Obes Rev 12(1):26-36.
Uhlig T, Hagen KB, Kvien TK. 2002. Why do patients with chronic musculoskeletal
disorders consult their primary care physicians? Curr Opin Rheumatol 14(2):104-8.
30 August Final Draft for review 190
Uhlig T, Loge JH, Kristiansen IS, Kvien TK. 2007. Quantification of Reduced
Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared to the
General Population. J Rheumatol 34:1241–7
Uhlig T. 2010. Which patients with rheumatoid arthritis are still working? Arthritis
Res Ther. 12(2): 114.
Van den Heuvel et al. 2007. Loss of productivity due to neck/shoulder symptoms and
hand/arm symptoms: results from the PROMO-study. J Occup Rehabil 17(3):370-82.
Van Ryn M, Fu SS. 2003. Paved with good intentions: do public health and human
service providers contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in health? Am J Public Health
93:248-55.
Von Korff M, Simon G. 1996. The relationship between pain and depression. Br J
Psychiatry 168(suppl):101–8.
Wagner E. 2011. Direkte Kosten der fortgeschrittenen Cox- und Gonarthrose in
Österreich. Wien Med Wochenschr 161/1–2: 44–52
Werner BF, Brouwer N, Job A et al. 2004. Burden of caregiving: evidence of
objective burden, subjective burden and quality of life impacts on informal caregivers
of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 15:570-577.
WHO. 1994. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for
postmenopausal osteoporosis. Technical report series 843.Geneva.
WHO 2003. Preventing musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace, Protecting
Worker’s Health Series 5.
WHO. 2003i. The Burden of Musculoskeletal Conditions at the Start of the
Millenium. WHO Technical Report Series 919. WHO Geneva.
30 August Final Draft for review 191
WHO 2006. Matching the lowest injury mortality rate could save half a million lives
per year in Europe. Fact sheet EURO/02/06.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/98607/fs0206e.pdf
WHO. 2011. World Report on Disability.
Woolf AD, Breedveld FC, Kvien TK et al . 2006. Controlling the obesity epidemic is
important for maintaining musculoskeletal health. Ann Rheum Dis 65:1401-1402.
Woolf AD. 2007. Health care services for those with musculoskeletal conditions: A
rheumatology service; Recommendations of the UEMS Section of Rheumatology /
European Board of Rheumatology 2006. Ann Rheum Dis 66(3):293-301.
Wu TY, Jen MH, Bottle A, et al. 2011. Admission rates and in-hospital mortality for
hip fractures in England 1998 to 2009: time trends study. Journal of Public Health
33/2(284-91) 1741-3850.
Young JD, Kulinskaya E, Cox N et al. 2000. Socioeconomic consequences of
rheumatoid arthritis in the first years of the disease. Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 59(10):794–799.